Teamsters v. Lucas Flour Co.
369 U.S. 95 (1962)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A strike over a dispute that a collective bargaining agreement requires to be resolved through final and binding arbitration is a violation of that agreement, even in the absence of an explicit no-strike clause. Furthermore, state courts adjudicating suits under § 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act must apply federal substantive law to ensure national uniformity.
Facts:
- Local 174, Teamsters (the union) and Lucas Flour Co. (the employer) were parties to a collective bargaining agreement.
- The agreement gave the employer the right to discharge employees for unsatisfactory work.
- The agreement contained a mandatory arbitration clause stating that any 'difference' between the employer and an employee 'shall be submitted to arbitration' and the decision would be 'final and binding.'
- In May 1958, the employer discharged an employee, Welsch, for damaging a forklift, citing unsatisfactory work as the reason.
- In response, the union called an eight-day strike to compel the employer to rehire Welsch.
- Following the strike, the dispute over Welsch's discharge was submitted to arbitration.
- The Board of Arbitration ultimately ruled in favor of the employer, finding that Welsch's work had been unsatisfactory and he was not entitled to reinstatement.
Procedural Posture:
- Lucas Flour Co. sued Local 174, Teamsters in the Superior Court of King County, Washington (a state trial court) for damages resulting from a strike.
- The trial court found in favor of the employer and entered a judgment for $6,501.60.
- The union, as appellant, appealed the judgment to the Supreme Court of Washington.
- Department One of the Supreme Court of Washington, acting as the appellee's reviewing court, affirmed the trial court's decision, applying principles of state contract law.
- The union petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari, which was granted.
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 strike over a dispute that a collective bargaining agreement commits to final and binding arbitration constitute a breach of that agreement, even if the agreement does not contain an express no-strike clause?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Stewart
Yes. A strike to settle a dispute which a collective bargaining agreement provides shall be settled exclusively and finally by compulsory arbitration constitutes a violation of the agreement. First, state courts have jurisdiction over such suits but must apply federal labor law, not incompatible local doctrines, to ensure uniformity in the interpretation of collective agreements nationwide. A single body of federal law is necessary to prevent the disruptive influence of different state laws on the negotiation and administration of labor contracts. Second, the agreement to submit disputes to binding arbitration implies a corresponding obligation not to strike over those same arbitrable disputes. This implied no-strike obligation is essential to the policy of national labor legislation, which promotes the arbitral process as a peaceful substitute for economic warfare. To allow a strike over an arbitrable grievance would be at odds with the contractual commitment to resolve the dispute through arbitration.
Dissenting - Justice Black
No. The Court improperly rewrites the parties' contract by implying a no-strike clause where one was deliberately omitted. The collective bargaining agreement contained two separate arbitration provisions: one for disputes over contract 'interpretation,' which explicitly included a no-strike promise, and another for employee grievances, which did not. This demonstrates that the parties knew how to include a no-strike clause and chose not to apply it to this type of dispute. Courts should enforce the contract as written, not add new promises based on their own view of labor policy. The right to strike is a fundamental, legislatively protected right that should not be relinquished through a judicial 'implication' that lacks any factual basis in the contract or the parties' intent.
Analysis:
This landmark decision firmly established that federal substantive law, not state law, governs the interpretation of collective bargaining agreements under § 301, and that this federal law is binding on state courts. Its most significant contribution is the creation of the implied no-strike obligation, also known as the quid pro quo theory of arbitration. By holding that a union's promise to arbitrate is the 'quid' for which it receives the employer's agreement to the contract, the Court found an implied 'quo' in the union's promise not to strike over arbitrable issues. This ruling greatly strengthened the power and finality of arbitration clauses and promoted industrial stability by making strikes over arbitrable grievances a breach of contract, thus exposing unions to damage suits.
Unlock the full brief for Teamsters v. Lucas Flour Co.