Boys Markets, Inc. v. Retail Clerks Union, Local 770
398 U.S. 235 (1970)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The anti-injunction provisions of the Norris-LaGuardia Act do not prohibit a federal court from enjoining a strike that breaches a no-strike obligation in a collective-bargaining agreement, provided that the agreement also contains a mandatory grievance or arbitration procedure for the underlying dispute.
Facts:
- Boys Markets, Inc. and the Retail Clerk's Union, Local 770 were parties to a collective-bargaining agreement.
- The agreement contained a clause requiring all controversies concerning its interpretation or application to be resolved through binding arbitration.
- The agreement also included a clause prohibiting any 'cessation or stoppage of work, lock-out, picketing or boycotts' during the life of the contract.
- A dispute arose when non-union members of Boys Markets' crew began rearranging merchandise in frozen food cases.
- A union representative insisted that only union personnel could perform this work.
- When Boys Markets did not agree to the union's demand, the union called a strike and began to picket the establishment.
- Boys Markets demanded that the union cease the strike and utilize the arbitration procedures outlined in the contract.
Procedural Posture:
- Boys Markets, Inc. filed a complaint in California Superior Court (state trial court) seeking injunctive relief and specific performance of the arbitration agreement.
- The state court issued a temporary restraining order forbidding the continuation of the strike.
- The Union removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.
- The District Court ordered the parties to arbitrate and issued an injunction against the strike.
- The Union, as appellant, appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
- The Court of Appeals, considering itself bound by Sinclair Refining Co. v. Atkinson, reversed the District Court's order granting the injunction.
- Boys Markets, Inc., as petitioner, successfully petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the anti-injunction provision of the Norris-LaGuardia Act prohibit a federal court from enjoining a strike that is in breach of a no-strike clause in a collective-bargaining agreement containing a mandatory arbitration procedure for the underlying grievance?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Brennan
No. The Norris-LaGuardia Act does not bar the granting of injunctive relief against a strike over an arbitrable grievance where the collective-bargaining agreement contains a no-strike clause. The Court's prior decision in Sinclair Refining Co. v. Atkinson, which held the opposite, is overruled. The Sinclair decision frustrated the national labor policy of promoting arbitration to peacefully resolve disputes, especially after the Avco Corp. decision allowed unions to remove state court injunction cases to federal court, thereby nullifying the state remedy. A no-strike obligation is the 'quid pro quo' for an employer's agreement to arbitrate; without the ability to enjoin a strike, the employer's incentive to agree to arbitration is severely diminished. Therefore, a narrow exception to the Norris-LaGuardia Act is necessary to accommodate the policy of the Labor Management Relations Act promoting the enforcement of arbitration agreements.
Dissenting - Mr. Justice Black
Yes. The Norris-LaGuardia Act's prohibition against injunctions in labor disputes should prevent the federal court from enjoining the strike. The Court's 1962 decision in Sinclair was correctly decided based on the clear and comprehensive language of the Act. Overruling this precedent amounts to judicial legislation, as Congress has been aware of the Sinclair holding for eight years and has declined to amend the statute. The Court should defer to Congress on matters of legislative policy, especially in the delicate field of labor relations. The majority's decision is based not on a change in the law, but on a change in the Court's membership and personal views, which undermines the principle of stare decisis and the proper separation of powers.
Concurring - Mr. Justice Stewart
No. While the author originally joined the majority in the Sinclair decision, subsequent events and reflection have shown that Sinclair was erroneously decided and has undermined the national labor policy favoring arbitration. The majority opinion correctly states the proper legal analysis. It is better to admit and correct a past error, even if late, than to perpetuate it.
Analysis:
This decision represents a significant accommodation between two foundational federal labor statutes: the Norris-LaGuardia Act of 1932 and the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947. By overruling Sinclair, the Court created a crucial exception to the broad anti-injunction rule, thereby strengthening the system of private arbitration as the central feature of industrial self-governance. This ruling made no-strike clauses practically enforceable, giving employers a powerful tool to halt strikes over arbitrable issues and ensuring that the promise to arbitrate remains a meaningful 'quid pro quo.' It effectively closed a loophole created by the intersection of Sinclair and Avco, which had allowed unions to escape state court injunctions through federal removal, thus promoting uniformity in labor law enforcement.
Unlock the full brief for Boys Markets, Inc. v. Retail Clerks Union, Local 770