Court Opinion

ID: 9466847
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 01:30:34.094133+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:40:00.772723
License: Public Domain

ROSENN, Circuit Judge,
concurring.
I agree with the majority that the judgment of the district court holding Local 326 liable to Coca-Cola for damages as a result of the sympathy strike must be reversed. I write separately, however, to express my disagreement with the analytical framework employed by the majority to resolve this case. My objection is to the majority’s extension of the doctrine of coterminous application to collective bargaining agreements with express no-strike clauses independent of the arbitration clause. I also except to the rule laid down by the majority that the employer necessarily must show clear and unmistakable waiver of the right to engage in a sympathy strike where a broad, unambiguous no-strike clause bars any strike or any picketing. Rather, I believe the controlling factor which renders the no-strike clause impotent here is the apparent commission of unfair labor practices by the employer against the truck drivers which precipitated a primary strike by them and a sympathy strike by the inside workers.
I.
The majority has adequately recounted the events leading up to the strike by the truck drivers and the resultant sympathy strike by the inside production and maintenance employees (inside workers). See maj. op. at 1183-1184. Several salient features of this case need to be underscored because I believe they become critical to its proper resolution. First, the strikes here were by separate bargaining units of the same union local dealing with a common employer at a common work site. Second, the no-strike clause in the contract between Coca-Cola and the inside workers was in no way tied to the arbitration clause in the contract. See maj. op. at 1186 n.2. Third, the primary strike by the truck drivers against Coca-Cola occurred only after the Company refused to collectively bargain with them following their re-transfer from Countrywide Personnel. Last, the issue before us is not whether injunctive relief will lie but only whether an award of damages may be obtained for the union’s alleged breach of the no-strike clause.
With these facts in mind, I first proceed to the majority’s analysis. The majority first holds that the express no-strike clause in the inside workers’ contract with Coca-Cola was not broad enough to waive the right to a sympathy strike, because the primary strike by the truck drivers was not over any dispute within the terms of the inside workers’ arbitration clause. The majority reaches this result by importing the doctrine of “coterminous application” from cases in which the collective bargaining agreement is devoid of a no-strike clause but one is implied from the presence of an arbitration clause.
In Teamsters Local v. Lucas Flour, 369 U.S. 95, 82 S.Ct. 571, 7 L.Ed.2d 593 (1962), the Court announced that in the absence of a no-strike clause, the presence of an arbitration clause in a collective bargaining agreement will give rise to an implied obligation not to strike over arbitrable disputes. This view was confirmed and refined in Gateway Coal Co. v. United Mine Workers, 414 U.S. 368, 94 S.Ct. 629, 38 L.Ed.2d 583 (1974). There, the Court held in an implied no-strike clause case, that “the agreement to arbitrate and the [implied] duty not to strike should be construed as having coterminous application.” Id. at 382, 94 S.Ct. at 639. Coterminous application means noth*1192ing more than that a court will not imply a no-strike clause broader than the arbitration clause from which it emanates. Therefore, if the strike is over a nonarbitrable dispute, the strike may not be restrained. The theoretical basis for coterminous application is that a no-strike clause is considered the quid pro quo of an arbitration clause in a labor contract. See Textile Workers Union v. Lincoln Mills, 353 U.S. 448, 77 S.Ct. 923, 1 L.Ed.2d 972 (1957). When a no-strike clause is absent in a contract, but an arbitration clause is present, its presence indicates the parties’ intent to settle disputes peacefully. Therefore, it is only fair to imply a duty not to strike. In the absence of language to the contrary, it makes sense to limit the obligation not to strike to the scope of the arbitration clause from which it draws its force. Thus, the union may not strike over any matter subject to arbitration.
In United States Steel Corp. v. UMW (U.S. Steel II), 548 F.2d 67 (3d Cir. 1976), cert. denied, 431 U.S. 968, 97 S.Ct. 2926, 53 L.Ed.2d 1063 (1977), we were faced with the question of whether-a duty not to engage in a sympathy strike could be implied from an arbitration clause in the absence of an express no-strike clause. We held that because the subject of the strike was not over any arbitrable dispute, a duty not to engage in a sympathy strike could not be implied. 548 F.2d at 73. However, as the majority correctly notes, maj. op. at 1185, we did not decide in U.S. Steel II whether an express no-strike clause might waive the right of the union to engage in a sympathy strike.
In the present case, we are not faced with the problem of whether an obligation not to strike may be implied from an arbitration clause, and thus, with the doctrine of coterminous application. We have a broad express no-strike clause which prohibits any strike or work stoppage. Article 16 of the collective bargaining agreement provides:
Section 1. The Union will not cause nor will any member of the bargaining unit take part in any strike, sit-down, stay-in, slow down in any operation of the Company or any curtailment of work or restriction of service or interference with the operation of the Company or any picketing or patrolling during the term of this Agreement.
The no-strike clause is not limited to strikes over arbitrable grievances — it prohibits any strike. Indeed, the parties have further isolated the no-strike clause from the arbitration clause of the contract by expressly providing that the question of whether a strike violates the no-strike clause is not an arbitrable dispute under the contract.1 Thus, I view the no-strike clause in this case, as did the district court, to be functionally independent from the arbitration clause of the contract. It is at this point that the majority advances its thesis that even an express no-strike clause must be coterminously applied with the arbitration clause. It holds that because the strike by the truck drivers was not an arbitrable grievance under the inside workers’ contract with Coca-Cola, the inside workers had the right to engage in a sympathy strike despite the broad express no-strike clause. The majority relies heavily on the Supreme Court’s decision in Buffalo Forge Co. v. United Steel Workers, 428 U.S. 397, 96 S.Ct. 3141, 49 L.Ed.2d 1022 (1976), to support its thesis. I believe this reliance is misplaced.
In Buffalo Forge Co. v. United Steel Workers, 428 U.S. 397, 96 S.Ct. 3141, 49 L.Ed.2d 1022 (1976), the precise issue for decision was whether a federal court may enjoin a sympathy strike pending the arbitrator’s decision as to whether the strike is forbidden by the express no-strike clause contained in the collective bargaining agreement between the employer and the striking union. In that case, the employer’s office clerical and technical employees struck and picketed the company’s plants during negotiations for a collective bargain*1193ing agreement. The employer’s production and maintenance employees represented by the defendant unions honored the picket lines in support of their sister unions despite their contractual promise with the employer not to strike. The no-strike clause was tied to the arbitration clause; whether the sympathy strike violated the no-strike clause was itself an arbitrable dispute under the contract. As in this case, the strike at issue was a sympathy strike in support of sister unions negotiating with the employer.
The Court held in Buffalo Forge that the sympathy strike could not be enjoined because the subject matter of the primary strike was not arbitrable under the sympathy strikers’ contract with the employer, and therefore, was not within the narrow exception to the Norris-LaGuardia Act announced in Boys Markets, Inc. v. Retail Clerks Union, 398 U.S. 235, 90 S.Ct. 1583, 26 L.Ed.2d 199 (1970). The Norris-LaGuardia Anti-Injunction Act of 1932, 29 U.S.C. § 101 (1976), deprived federal courts of jurisdiction to issue any restraining order or injunction against peaceful strikes involving or growing out of a labor dispute. In Boys Market, however, the Court excepted from the general prohibition against injunctions in labor disputes those cases in which an injunction was sought to require the arbitration of a matter subject to the settlement procedures in the collective bargaining agreement.2 This result was necessary to give meaning to “the congressional policy favoring the voluntary establishment of a mechanism for the peaceful resolution of labor disputes.” 398 U.S. at 253, 90 S.Ct. at 1594.
I believe, therefore, that the relationship between the sympathy strikers’ right to strike and the arbitration clause of the contract in Buffalo Forge must be read in the context of the relief requested, namely an injunction. The nonarbitrability of the underlying dispute only relates to the availability of injunctive relief under Boys Market, not to a suit for damages. I see nothing in Buffalo Forge to indicate that in a suit for damages, the relationship between the arbitration and no-strike clause is in any way germane to whether the strike is in violation of the no-strike clause. Indeed, a remedy in damages for the violation of an express no-strike clause becomes all the more necessary in light of the general unavailability of injunctive relief under the Norris-LaGuardia Act. Precisely for this reason, Congress undertook to restore some equilibrium in industrial relations with the enactment of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947, wherein it permitted relief for breach of the collective bargaining agreement in the form of damage actions under section 301, 29 U.S.C. § 185 (1976), in federal or state courts.
In Atkinson v. Sinclair Refining Co., 370 U.S. 238, 82 S.Ct. 1318, 8 L.Ed.2d 462 (1962), (Atkinson II), the Court had before it the issue of damages growing out of the same strike in which it had denied injunctive relief in Atkinson, supra, note 2, 370 U.S. 195, 82 S.Ct. 1328, 8 L.Ed.2d 440. Both cases were decided the same day and decided separately the questions pertaining to *1194injunctive relief and damages. The no-strike clause in the contract provided: “[Tjhere shall be no strike . . . (1) for any cause which is or may be the subject of a grievance ... or (2) for any other cause, except upon written notice by the union to the employer. . . .” The Court perceived the contract as “not susceptible to a construction that the Company was bound to arbitrate its claim for damages against the union by breach of the undertaking not to strike.” Id. at 241, 82 S.Ct. at 1321. The Court therefore concluded that the employer was entitled to prove in court its claim for damages from the union for breach of contract, although it denied injunctive relief under the no-strike clause in its companion decision. See n.2, supra.
The Court in Buffalo Forge did not reach the issue of damages only because the issue of whether the sympathy strikers violated the no-strike clause was itself an arbitrable dispute and “[i]t was for the arbitrator to determine whether there was a breach [of the no-strike clause], as well as the remedy for any breach, . . . ” 428 U.S. at 410, 96 S.Ct. at 3149. Thus, even though the sympathy strike was not enjoinable, the employer might still have been able to collect damages if the arbitrator determined the sympathy strike violated the express no-strike clause.
I believe, therefore, that Buffalo Forge provides no basis for coterminous application in a damage action for the breach of an express no-strike clause. I think that coterminous application is a doctrine limited solely to implied no-strike clauses in which the scope of the obligation not to strike must be measured by the breadth of the arbitration clause. Although a no-strike clause, express or implied, is the quid pro quo for an arbitration clause, coterminous application is necessary only in implied no-strike situations when there is no other plausible means of determining the extent of the promise not to strike. But, where a union has plainly and expressly set forth its promise in a broad no-strike provision, the breach of that promise may give rise to a suit for damages, although it may not entitle the injured party to injunctive relief if the dispute is not arbitrable.
In W — I Canteen Services, Inc. v. NLRB, 606 F.2d 738, 744 (7th Cir. 1979), the court stated: “[The] principle of coterminous application of the arbitration and no-strike clauses, ... is not without exceptions. . . The principle is merely a rule of contract interpretation and the parties may by express language indicate their intent to interpret the no-strike and arbitration clauses differently.” Assuming that the employer exchanges the right to arbitration for a promise by the union not to strike, this does not necessarily mean that the promise must be coterminous. Nothing forbids the employer from securing a promise not to strike that is broader than the promise to arbitrate grievances. In this case, the arbitration and no-strike clauses were functionally independent. Coca-Cola successfully obtained a promise from the union to not engage in any strike — not merely strikes over arbitrable grievances. Thus, I believe we must look to the express language of the no-strike clause itself, not merely to the scope of arbitration, to determine whether an action for damages will lie. We, in essence, face the same task as the arbitrator in Buffalo Forge: did this particular sympathy strike violate the no-strike clause so as to give rise to an action for damages by the employer?
III.
Facially, there can be no question that the strike in this case violates the broad no-strike clause of the Coca-Cola contract. Putting to one side the majority’s attempt to limit the scope of the no-strike clause to arbitrable grievances by the concept of coterminous application, the majority alternatively finds no “clear and unmistakable” waiver of the right to engage in a sympathy strike despite the express language of the no-strike clause forbidding any strike or work stoppage. Maj. op. at 1186-1187. Relying principally on Mastro Plastics v. NLRB, 350 U.S. 270, 76 S.Ct. 349, 100 L.Ed. 309 (1956), the majority reasons that the broad *1195term “any strike or work stoppage” is insufficient to waive the right to a sympathy strike, and that the no-strike clause must be read in light of the contract, the bargaining history of the parties and their subsequent conduct. Despite the clear and unambiguous language of the no-strike clause, the majority looks to extrinsic parole evidence to support its efforts to hold that the no-strike clause did not bar sympathy strikes. It concludes that no such clear and unmistakable waiver is discernible from the facts of this case, and the union therefore did not relinquish its right to strike against Coca-Cola. I believe the majority takes too broad a view of Mastro Plastics in announcing a rule that any sympathy strike must be clearly and unmistakably waived before the union may be held accountable for it.
Mastro Plastics, like the case now before us, involved a labor contract containing a broad express no-strike clause. Mastro Plastics, however, significantly involved a primary strike against the employer in protest over its commission of unfair labor practices against the union. The issue in Mastro Plastics was whether a broad, express no-strike clause by itself could waive the union’s right to strike solely in protest over the employer’s commission of an unfair labor practice. The Court indicated that the answer not only turned upon the proper interpretation of the particular contract but “[l]ike other contracts, it must be read as a whole in light of the law relating to it when made.” Id. at 279, 76 S.Ct. at 356 (emphasis supplied). The Court went on to indicate that the contract must be read in light of labor policy, which is to eliminate obstructions to interstate commerce by
encouraging the practice and procedure of collective bargaining and by protecting the exercise by workers of full freedom of association, self-organization, designation of representatives of their own choosing, for the purpose of negotiating the terms and conditions of their employment or other mutual aid or protection.
Id. at 279-80, 76 S.Ct. at 356, quoting 29 U.S.C. § 151. The employer argued that the term “any strike” was broad enough to waive any right to strike over unfair labor
practices. The Court rejected this argument because to so hold
would eliminate, for the whole year, the employees’ right to strike, even if petitioners, by coercion, ousted the employees’ lawful bargaining representative and, by threats of discharge, caused the employees to sign membership cards in a new union. Whatever may be said of the legality of such a waiver when explicitly stated, there is no adequate basis for implying its existence without a more compelling expression of it than appears in . this contract.
Id. at 283, 76 S.Ct. at 358. The Court held that the literal term “no strike” would not be interpreted as barring an unfair labor practice strike. The reason is that a literal reading would frustrate national labor policy — the employer could effectively insulate his breach of the National Labor Relations Act from any effective concerted action by the employees through a broad no-strike clause. Inasmuch as the right to strike over unfair labor practices is protected activity under section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), the Court was unwilling to find a waiver of such a basic right without specific reference to it, even in the presence of broad no-strike language. In short, broad no-strike language is tacitly limited, “whatever may be said of the legality of such a waiver when explicitly stated,” by national labor policy forbidding employer unfair labor practices. The Court, however, believed that broad express no-strike language was sufficient to waive the union’s right to engage in an economic strike. See 350 U.S. at 283, 76 S.Ct. at 358.
Mastro Plastics dealt with a serious unfair labor practice allegedly committed by the employer against the bargaining unit with whom it had collectively contracted. Circuit cases have held that Mastro Plastics requires a “clear and unmistakable” waiver of the right to strike over unfair labor practices. See, e. g., Newspaper Production Co. v. NLRB, 503 F.2d 821, 830 (5th Cir. 1974); Kellogg Co. v. NLRB, 457 F.2d 519, 525 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 850, 93 S.Ct. 58, 34 L.Ed.2d 92 (1972). Courts have *1196seized upon the Mastro Hasties rule and have applied it to sympathy strikes. See, e. g., W-I Canteen Services, supra; NLRB v. C. K. Smith & Co., 569 F.2d 162 (1st Cir. 1977), cert. denied, 436 U.S. 957, 98 S.Ct. 3070, 57 L.Ed.2d 1122 (1978); Gary Hobart Water Co. v. NLRB, 511 F.2d 284, 287 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 925, 96 S.Ct. 269, 46 L.Ed.2d 252 (1975). This wholesale application of Mastro Plastics to the problem of sympathy strikes facially barred by broad express no-strike language, has proceeded largely without any consideration of national labor policy forbidding unfair labor practices. Indeed, I read Mastro Plastics as implicitly making every no-strike clause subject to the exception that it may not waive serious employer unfair labor practices, unless explicitly stated. The National Labor Relations Board also has limited the Mastro Plastics explicit waiver rule to cases in which the employer commits a serious unfair labor practice. See Arlan’s Department Store of Michigan, Inc., 133 N.L.R.B. 802, 807 (1961). I believe, therefore, that Mastro Plastics is limited in scope and simply posits that national labor policy demands a less literal construction of the term “no strike” when a work stoppage is precipitated by a serious breach of the NLRA by the employer.3
IV.
I therefore believe that a relevant inquiry in the application of a no-strike clause in a labor contract is whether the employer has precipitated the strike by a serious unfair labor practice in violation of national labor policy. The answer would be relatively simple were we concerned, as was Mastro Plastics, with unfair labor practices directed to the bargaining unit with whom the employer has its labor contract. Here, however, the primary strike is by the truck drivers with whom the employer has no contract. The inside workers who are in a contractual relationship with the employer have engaged in a sympathy strike in support of the truck drivers’ primary strike. Sympathy strikes are always in support of another strike for the sympathy strikers have no independent complaint against the employer. The majority eschews any focus on the nature of the primary strike in determining whether the sympathy strike is barred by broad no-strike language in the contract. See maj. op. at 1187 n.3. Instead, it holds that a clear and unmistakable waiver must be present in all sympathy strike cases and proceeds to determine if such a waiver is evident in the bargaining history and subsequent conduct of the parties. I believe that the controlling question is whether the rule of Mastro Plastics as I read it can be extended to a sympathy strike which is in support of a primary unfair labor practice strike by a sister bargaining unit of the same local against a common employer at a common work site.
A sympathy strike causes a rift between the employer and the sympathy strikers with whom he has no dispute. In most instances, I would conclude that national labor policy favoring the stability of employer-employee relationships requires that broad no-strike language be construed in its plain, unequivocal terms. However, where an employer commits a serious unfair labor practice against a sister bargaining unit of the same local at the same plant which is the underlying cause of the strike, I believe that the national labor policy favoring concerted action by employees in mutual support or protection of their rights requires that waiver of the right to strike under such circumstances be explicitly stated.
In the present case, Teamsters Local 326 represented both the drivers engaged in the primary strike and the inside workers who, by refusing to cross the drivers’ picket line, engaged in a sympathy strike. Coca-Cola was the employer of both the drivers and *1197inside workers and all the employees worked at a common job site. Initially, the local attempted to negotiate a separate contract for the drivers and the inside workers. When negotiations for the drivers’ contract broke down, Coca-Cola decided to transfer their employment to Countrywide Personnel. Local 326 thereafter successfully negotiated a collective bargaining agreement for the drivers with Countrywide Personnel.
After the local’s contract with Countrywide Personnel expired, the drivers were retransferred to Coca-Cola. Instead of attempting to negotiate a contract with Local 326 for the drivers, Coca-Cola insisted that the drivers “fell back” into the insider workers’ contract. The local perceived this as a sham and an attempt to circumvent collective bargaining over the drivers’ contract. Although no unfair labor practice charges were filed, it appears that Coca-Cola’s refusal to bargain constituted a serious unfair labor practice under section 8(a)(5) of the NLRA, 29 U.S.C. § 158(a)(5).4 Thus, the mid-summer strike by the drivers constituted an unfair labor practice strike.
Although Coca-Cola had committed no unfair labor practice against the inside workers, the existence of a serious unfair labor practice against the drivers who were represented by the same local and who worked at the same plant, understandably disrupted the labor-management relationship at the plant. Coca-Cola was apparently violating section 8(a)(5) by its continued insistence that the drivers were covered by the inside workers’ contract. Congress has expressed a major national labor policy that when the National Labor Relations Board has certified a union as the exclusive bargaining agent for employees, the employer must bargain with that union in good faith. It would ill serve that policy if an employer, who has unfairly refused to bargain with a certified bargaining agent representing his employees and is thereby precipitating a strike, could sue the bargaining agent for damages because members of a related bargaining unit employed by the common employer at a common work site but with whom the employer has a contract honor the picket line and also strike. Even though a sympathy strike by the inside workers would disrupt their relationship with Coca-Cola, I believe that national labor policy favoring concerted action did not render the sympathy strike impermissible under these limited circumstances. Cf. C. K. Smith, supra (sympathy strikers in support of primary unfair labor practice strike entitled to reinstatement).
V.
To summarize, I believe the doctrine of coterminous application has no place in cases in which an express no-strike clause functionally independent from the arbitration clause is present. I further believe that in view of our national labor policy protecting the right to strike over unfair labor practices under section 7 of the NLRA, a court may not find a waiver of such a basic right, even in a broad no-strike clause, unless such a waiver, whatever may be said of its legality, is explicitly stated. I would apply this rule of Mastro Plastics only to sympathy strikers on behalf of a sister bargaining unit’s primary unfair labor practice strike against a common employer at a common work site. In these narrow circumstances, the sympathy strike is not impermissible. Therefore, I concur with the majority on this basis and I would reverse the judgment of the district court.

. Section 3 of the no-strike clause provides that the provisions of this Article, other than mentioned above, “shall not be subject to grievance or arbitration, for the purpose of assessing damages or securing specific performance, or any other matter, such matters of law being determinable and enforceable in the courts.”

. The Court thereby retreated from its earlier position that such an injunction was barred under Norris-LaGuardia. In Sinclair Refining Co. v. Atkinson, 370 U.S. 195, 82 S.Ct. 1328, 8 L.Ed.2d 440 (1962), the employer brought an action under section 301(a) of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947 to enjoin, inter alia, strikes and peaceable picketing, claiming the union violated its contractual promise not to strike. The contract also provided for grievance procedures terminating in final and binding arbitration. Confronted with the question whether labor policy favoring peaceful resolution of contract disputes through arbitration and judicial enforcement of no-strike policies could be accommodated with the ban upon injunctions of peaceful strikes, the Court held that the injunction was barred by section 4 of the Norris-LaGuardia Act; that the case involved a “labor dispute” within the meaning of the Act, even if the work stoppage and strike constituted breaches of the collective bargaining agreement. Writing for the Court, Mr. Justice Black observed that although the work stoppages and strike may have constituted a breach of the collective bargaining agreement this did not alter the plain fact that the strike was a labor dispute and the injunction sought, therefore, “runs squarely counter to the proscription of strikes contained in section 4(a) of the Norris-LaGuardia Act, to the proscriptions of injunctions against peaceful picketing contained in section 4(e).” Id. at 203, 82 S.Ct. at 1333.

. Particular public policies are commonly considered germane to contract interpretation in a variety of contexts. For instance, insurance contracts, because they are considered contracts of adhesion are generally interpreted in light of the policy of protecting consumers from contractual provisions over which they have no choice because of unequal bargaining strength. See generally Brokers Title Co. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 610 F.2d 1174 (3d Cir. 1979).

. The pertinent provision of § 8(a)(5) reads: It shall be an unfair labor practice for an employer-
(5) to refuse to bargain collectively with the representatives of his employees, subject to the provisions of section 159(a) of this title.