United Steelworkers of America v. Warrior & Gulf Navigation Co.
4 L. Ed. 2d 1409, 80 S. Ct. 1347 (1960)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When a collective bargaining agreement contains an arbitration clause, there is a strong presumption of arbitrability. A court should order arbitration unless it can be said with positive assurance that the arbitration clause is not susceptible to an interpretation that covers the asserted dispute, and any doubts should be resolved in favor of coverage.
Facts:
- Warrior & Gulf Navigation Co. ('respondent') operates a barge transportation business with a maintenance terminal in Chickasaw, Alabama.
- The employees at the terminal were represented by the United Steelworkers of America ('petitioner') under a collective bargaining agreement.
- Between 1956 and 1958, the respondent laid off numerous employees, reducing the bargaining unit from 42 to 23 people.
- The layoffs were partly caused by the respondent's decision to contract out maintenance and repair work that was previously performed by its own employees.
- The outside companies hired some of the respondent's laid-off employees at reduced wages to work on the respondent's barges.
- The collective bargaining agreement contained a broad arbitration clause covering 'differences... as to the meaning and application of the provisions of this Agreement' or 'any local trouble of any kind.'
- The agreement also included a 'no-strike' clause and a provision stating that 'matters which are strictly a function of management shall not be subject to arbitration.'
- The union had unsuccessfully attempted to negotiate a clause limiting the company's ability to contract out work during past negotiations.
Procedural Posture:
- The United Steelworkers of America ('union') filed a grievance with Warrior & Gulf Navigation Co. ('company') challenging the company's practice of contracting out work.
- The company refused the union's request to submit the grievance to arbitration.
- The union filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court to compel the company to arbitrate the grievance.
- The District Court dismissed the complaint, ruling that contracting out work was 'strictly a function of management' and thus excluded from arbitration under the contract.
- The union, as appellant, appealed the dismissal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's judgment.
- The union, as petitioner, 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:
Under the Labor Management Relations Act, must a court order arbitration for a grievance over contracting out work when the collective bargaining agreement contains a broad arbitration clause for any 'differences' but also excludes 'matters which are strictly a function of management' from arbitration?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Douglas
Yes, a court must order arbitration. When a collective bargaining agreement includes an arbitration clause, a court's inquiry is strictly confined to whether the party agreed to arbitrate the grievance. Arbitration in labor disputes serves as a substitute for industrial strife, not litigation, and is a key component of federal labor policy. An order to arbitrate should not be denied unless it can be said with positive assurance that the arbitration clause is not susceptible of an interpretation that covers the dispute; all doubts must be resolved in favor of arbitrability. The phrase 'strictly a function of management' is vague, and for a court to interpret it would entangle the court in the merits of the dispute, which is the arbitrator's function. In the absence of an express provision excluding a particular grievance, only the most forceful evidence of a purpose to exclude can overcome the presumption of arbitrability.
Dissenting - Justice Whittaker
No, a court should not order arbitration in this case. Arbitration is a matter of contract, and a party cannot be required to arbitrate a dispute it has not clearly and definitively agreed to arbitrate. The contract here explicitly excludes 'matters which are strictly a function of management' from arbitration. The long-standing practice of the employer contracting out work, combined with the union's repeated and unsuccessful attempts to negotiate a contractual limitation on this practice, demonstrates that both parties understood contracting out to be a management function excluded from arbitration. The majority's decision departs from established principles by creating a new doctrine that forces a party to arbitrate a question it never agreed to submit.
Analysis:
This landmark decision, part of the 'Steelworkers Trilogy,' established the strong federal presumption in favor of arbitrability in labor disputes. It fundamentally shifted the role of the judiciary from interpreting the substance of a collective bargaining agreement to acting as a gatekeeper, compelling arbitration so long as the claim is arguably covered by the arbitration clause. This holding greatly empowered labor arbitrators, making them the primary interpreters of 'the law of the shop' and cementing arbitration as the preferred method for resolving grievances, thereby promoting industrial peace by providing an alternative to strikes.
Unlock the full brief for United Steelworkers of America v. Warrior & Gulf Navigation Co.