Groves v. Ring Screw Works, Ferndale Fastener Div.
111 S. Ct. 498, 1990 U.S. LEXIS 6236, 498 U.S. 168 (1990)
Rule of Law:
A collective-bargaining agreement that provides for voluntary grievance procedures and reserves the parties' rights to resort to economic weapons, but does not mandate binding arbitration and is silent as to judicial remedies, does not bar employees from seeking judicial recourse under § 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act for breach of contract.
Facts:
- Ring Screw Works (company) and Local 771, International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (union) were parties to two nearly identical collective-bargaining agreements (CBAs).
- These CBAs prohibited employee discharges except for 'just cause.'
- The CBAs established a voluntary multistep grievance procedure for disputes but did not require submission to binding arbitration.
- The CBAs contained a no-strike/no-lockout clause that applied 'until all negotiations have failed through the grievance procedure,' explicitly reserving the right to economic weapons (strikes or lockouts) at that point.
- Ring Screw Works discharged employees Arthur Groves and Bobby J. Evans, allegedly for excessive absences and falsifying records, respectively.
- Groves and Evans, with union assistance, invoked and exhausted the contractual grievance procedures without a successful resolution.
- After the grievance procedures failed, Ring Screw Works chose not to call for arbitration, and the union decided not to exercise its right to strike.
Procedural Posture:
- Petitioners Groves and Evans filed an action in federal District Court, invoking federal jurisdiction under § 301 of the LMRA.
- The District Court granted Ring Screw Works' motion for summary judgment.
- Groves and Evans appealed the District Court's decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit (petitioners are appellants, Ring Screw Works is appellee).
- The Sixth Circuit affirmed the District Court's decision, relying on prior circuit precedent that the existence of a contractual dispute resolution mechanism, even without binding arbitration, foreclosed judicial review if it was intended to be exclusive.
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 a collective-bargaining agreement that includes voluntary grievance procedures and permits economic recourse upon failure of those procedures, but does not provide for binding arbitration, preclude individual employees from pursuing a judicial remedy under § 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act for alleged wrongful discharge?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Stevens
No, a collective-bargaining agreement that includes voluntary grievance procedures and permits economic recourse upon their failure, but does not mandate binding arbitration, does not preclude individual employees from pursuing a judicial remedy under § 301 of the LMRA for alleged wrongful discharge. The Court held that § 301(a) of the LMRA provides a federal remedy for breach of a collective-bargaining agreement, authorizing suits by individual employees, including actions against an employer for wrongful discharge. There is a strong federal policy favoring judicial enforcement of such agreements and a presumption favoring access to a neutral forum for peaceful dispute resolution. While parties may agree to alternative dispute resolution methods, including economic warfare, such an agreement must be express and clear to overcome the presumption of judicial access. The Court distinguished economic warfare (strikes/lockouts), which merely imposes one party's will, from methods that resolve the merits of a contractual dispute. It emphasized that Congress, through the LMRA, envisioned peaceful methods of dispute resolution. Citing Hines v. Anchor Motor Freight, Inc., the Court reaffirmed that § 301 contemplates vindication of 'uniquely personal' rights like wrongful discharge. Relying on Associated General Contractors of Illinois v. Illinois Conference of Teamsters, the Court found that merely reserving a right to 'economic recourse' does not divest courts of jurisdiction unless the agreement is 'written much more clearly' to forbid judicial participation.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the strong federal policy favoring peaceful resolution of labor disputes through judicial mechanisms under § 301 of the LMRA, even when collective-bargaining agreements provide for grievance procedures and reserve economic weapons. It places a significant burden on parties seeking to contractually exclude judicial remedies, requiring exceedingly clear language to overcome the presumption of judicial access. This decision ensures that individual employees have a pathway to enforce their contract rights, preventing situations where unresolved grievances would otherwise force a choice between abandoning claims or initiating disruptive economic action.
