*1 STEELWORK- FORGE CO. v. UNITED BUFFALO AMERICA, AFL-CIO, OF ERS et al. July 6, Argued March 1976 Decided
No. 75-339. *2 Jeremy Cohen V. argued cause and filed briefs petitioner.
George Cohen respondents. H. argued the cause for H. Bredhoff, Michael the brief were Elliot him With on Kleiman, Gottesman, Weinberg, Bernard Carl Robert M. Woll, Frankel, McMahon, Albert P. J. and Thomas Laurence S. Gold.* by George R. urging were filed
*Briefs curiae reversal of amici Cooney, Jr., Industries Fearon for Associated and Charles E. Gershuny Guy State, Inc.; by A. Farmer and William New York Kraus, Operators’ Assn., Inc.; Lawrence B. for Bituminous Coal opinion delivered Justice White Mr.
Court. may court a federal
The issue for decision is whether de- enjoin sympathy pending the arbitrator’s ex- is cision to whether the strike forbidden press the collective-bar- no-strike clause contained striking party. union gaining contract which the I sep- Forge The Buffalo three (employer) operates Co. Y., plant Buffalo, arate office facilities N. years maintenance production area. For some been employees three have (P&M) locations *3 of represented the Steelworkers by America, United 3732 its No. and No. and Local Unions AFL-CIO, The collectively Union). (hereafter sometimes separate party the two United Steelworkers is a and the locals collective-bargaining agreements between contain identical employer. contracts grievance provisions and arbitration as well as clauses,1 Heylin, Curtin, and Berman, G. Brockwel William J. Richard B. Harry of Commerce of United A. Rissetto for the Chamber by of States; Association and Richard D. Godown for the National Manufacturers of United States. agreement provides: of each Section 14.b. interruption or strikes, stoppages be no
“There shall work or shall impeding representatives No the Union of work. Officers or any em- authorize, instigate, aid such No or condone activities. activity. recognizes ployee participate any in The Union shall such its provision this will use possible its liabilities for and violation prevented. stoppages are Unsuccessful influence to see work prevent and by representatives officers efforts Union or Union paragraph, not be con- prohibited this will terminate conduct result conduct shall not ‘aid’ or of such and strued as ‘condonation’ or Officers, any disciplinary against committeemen actions App. 16. involved.” stewards settling
for disputes interpretation applica- over the and provide: tion of each contract. The latter arise “26. Should differences between [em- ployer] any employee Agree- and covered this pro- application ment as to meaning or visions this should trouble Agreement, any kind sus- arise there shall be no plant, pension of on work account of such but differences, effort earnest shall made to settle such dif- ferences immediately six-step [under procedure provided arbitration sections through 32].” Shortly before this arose, the United Steelwork- ers and two other not parties locals were litigation this represent certified to the employer’s “office clerical-tech- (O&T) nical” employees at the same three locations. On November after several months of 1974, negotia- tions looking toward their first collective-bargaining the O&T agreement, employees struck and established picket lines at all three locations. On Novem- ber employees P&M plant one refused to cross the O&T picket day. line days Two later, employer learned that the P&M employees planned to stop work at plants all three the next morning. In tele- *4 grams to the Union, the employer position stated its a strike employees the P&M would the violate no-strike clause and offered to any arbitrate dispute 2Id., at 17. The step six-part final grievance the procedure provided for 32:§ “In the question event the a involves meaning as to the application provisions of the Agreement, of this and has not previously satisfactorily been adjusted, may it be submitted to arbi- upon tration written notice of the Union Company.” Id., or the at 19. planned led to strike.3 The next which had the day, employees at the the P&M honored Union’s direction, stopped the the three picket O&T line and work plants. They did not return to work until December 16, day de- regular working the first after the District Court employer’s prayer preliminary injunction. the for a nied complaint of employer’s (a) § under the Management in District Act, 1947,4 Labor Relations filed on stoppage Court November claimed the work 26, of Contending in violation the no-strike clause. in the work specific alternative that the strike was caused a incident P&M involving truck drivers’ refusal to follow line, supervisor’s instructions picket to cross the O&T question employees’ and that the P&M whether the stoppage work violated the no-strike clause was itself employer arbitrable, requested temporary the damages, restraining preliminary injunction order and a against an strike, compelling parties order to- submit
3Id., at 22-23. argument Court, parties At oral before this disagreed employer’s telegrams whether sufficient to submit were grievance procedures. contractual Tr. Oral Arg. 44-45, employer’s complaint prayed 48-50. The order requiring dispute “relating performance arbitration of a to work any underlying truck drivers or other dispute.” App. 10. As far grievance proceedings place record indicates no have taken any respect aspect dispute. apparently with of the The Union argued Appeals in the Court of employer that the was not entitled griev because failed to invoke the contractual procedures. (1975). ance 517 F. 2d 1209 n. Like Court Appeals, ibid., disposition we need not under reach issue our case. (a). 4 61 (a) Stat. C. provides: S. Section §185 “Suits employer for violation of contracts between an and a labor organization representing employees industry affecting in an com Act, merce as defined in any organi this such or between labor zations, may brought district court of the United States having jurisdiction parties, respect without to the amount in controversy regard or without citizenship parties.” *5 contractual
any “underlying dispute” to the position procedures. The Union's arbitration not violate the stoppage work did question clause.5 It offered to submit to arbitra day’s prayer tion “on but notice,” opposed one injunctive relief.
After denying temporary restraining order and finding that the P&M work not the result stoppage was specific of the to picket refusal cross the line, O&T District employees Court concluded that the P&M were in engaged sympathy action in support striking of the O&T employees. The District Court then held itself injunction by forbidden 4 of issue the Norris- § Act7 LaGuardia employees’ because P&M 57; District Court Tr. Respondent Memorandum for in District Court 13. 6Id., 9. 7Section 4 of the Act, Norris-LaGuardia 47 Stat. 29 U. S. C. 104, provides: § “No court jurisdiction any- of the United States shall have to issue restraining temporary order or permanent injunction or any in case involving growing or any dispute prohibit any out of person labor or persons participating (as or dispute interested such these defined) terms are doing, concert, herein from singly whether or any following acts: “(a) Ceasing refusing any perform any or work or remain in relation of employment; “(b) Becoming or remaining any organization a member of labor any or employer organization, regardless any undertaking such promise
or Act; is described in section 3 of this
“(c) Paying giving to, withholding from, any or or person partici- pating or dispute, interested in any such labor unemploy- strike or ment insurance, benefits moneys or or things value; other or “(d) By any all aiding person lawful means participating or inter- any ested in being proceeded labor against in, who is or is prosecuting, any action or suit court of the United States or any State; “(e) Giving publicity of, to the existence or the in, facts involved
403 oyer grievance” was not was “arbitrable and hence not within exception the “narrow” to the Norris-La- Boys Markets Retail Clerks Guardia Act established v.
Union, (1970). 398 U. 386 405 Supp. (WDNY S. 235 F. 1974). employer’s
On the from appeal prelim- denial a inary 28 parties § U. S. 1292 injunction, (a)(1), C. stipulated that District Court’s findings fact were the Union had authorized and directed the correct, P&M employees’ work employ- the O&T stoppage, picket ees’ strike and line were fide, bona primary, and that the P&M employees’ work legal, stoppage, though might any “be resumed at time ended, near future at the direction of the International Union, 8 or otherwise.”
The Court Appeals It enjoin- affirmed. held that any dispute, labor advertising, patrolling, whether speaking, or by any other method involving violence; not fraud or
“(f) Assembling peaceably organize or promo- to act to act in tion of their dispute; interests a labor
“(g) Advising notifying any person any or anof intention do specified; of the acts heretofore
“(h) Agreeing persons any with other do or not to do specified; acts heretofore
“(i) Advising, urging, causing inducing or otherwise or without fraud specified, or violence the acts regardless heretofore undertaking promise such or as is described in this section 3 of Act.”
8 App. presence existing dispute 25. The of an makes this a controversy despite five employees’ job. the P&M return to the Super Engineering Tire McCorkle, 115, See Co. v. 416 S. 124- (1974); Employees Missouri, (1963). Bus 374 U. S. 77-78 agreements collective-bargaining in effect this action when expired, parties arose but App. have have stipulated, they govern dispute. appeal resolution of this On employer did challenge not finding the District Court’s that the employees’ P&M not, stoppage work at least in part, protest driving was truck over assignments. 2d, 517 F. at 1211 7.n. which not “over a was this which
ing
strike,
permitted
not
arbitrate,”
agreed
union has
Act.
Markets
exception to the Norris-LaGuardia
1975).
the Courts of
(CA2
Because
F. 2d 1207,
whether such a
question
on the
Appeals are divided
petition
employer’s
may
enjoined,9
granted
we
and now
for writ of
S.
(1975),
certiorari,
Appeals.
of the Court of
judgment
affirm the
*7
II
in this case
certain elements
preliminary matter,
As a
on strike not
dispute.
gone
are
The Union has
not
9
with
Circuit in this case is
accord
The decision
Second
Circuits,
Corp. Meat
decisions
the Fifth and Sixth
Amstar
v.
(CA5 1972);
Cutters,
1372
Plain
Pub. Co. v.
468 F. 2d
Dealer
(CA6 1975),
Typographical Union,
cert.
Cleveland
The issue case arises only order Union arbitrate directing asked prayed enjoined pending the strike itself be but arbitration and the arbitrator’s whether decision permissible strike was under the no-strike clause. Con trary to the Court of Appeals, employer claims that despite the Norris-LaGuardia ban Act’s on federal-court injunctions in labor disputes District Court was empowered to enjoin the by § 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act Boys Mar construed kets v. Union, Retail Clerks supra. un This would doubtedly have been the case had the pre strike been cipitated by dispute between union management subject that was to binding arbitration under pro In Boys Markets, visions of the contracts. the union demanded that supervisory employees performing cease tasks claimed the union to be union work. The union struck when rejected. the demand dis was The pute kind subject was arbi tration clauses contained in the con collective-bargaining tract, and also was clear that the strike violated the no-strike clause accompanying provisions. the arbitration The Court enjoined held that the union could be from over a striking which it was bound arbitrate employer’s at the behest. holding Markets said to be a “narrow
one,” dealing only with the situation in col- which the lective-bargaining mandatory contract contained griev- Id., ance and procedures. arbitration 253. “[F]or guidance in determining district courts whether grant injunctive relief,” expressly the Court adopted the principles in Sinclair enunciated dissent Refin- ing Atkinson, Co. U. S. (1962), including *9 the proposition that
“ sought enjoined a strike is to it ‘[w]hen because is over a which parties both con- are tractually bound to may the District arbitrate, Court injunctive issue no until order it first holds that the contract does effect; have that employer and the should be to ordered as a arbitrate, condition of his " obtaining an injunction against the strike.' at 254 (emphasis Sinclair). The driving Boys force behind imple Markets was to ment strong congressional preference private for the the^ dispute agreed mechanisms upon Settlement parties. Only to necessary that extent was it held to ac commodate § the Norris-LaGuardia Act to 301§ Management Relations Act and lift Laborj former’s against injunctions ban issuance in labor disputes. /Striking an over arbitrable would in terfere and frustrate the arbitral processes which wijth had chosen to a dispute. quid settle pro parties quo for employer’s promise un arbitrate was the obligation ion’s not to strike over subject issues that were to the arbitration machinery. Even the absence of express no-strike clause, undertaking to strike not would be implied where the strike was over an otherwise dispute. arbitrable Goal Gateway Co. v. Mine Work ers, supra; Co., Teamsters Flour v. Lucas 95 S. (1962). the employer deprived would be Otherwise, bargain his policy imple of the labor statutes private disputes agreed ment resolution of in a manner upon would seriously suffer. plainly Markets does not control this case. The Court
District it is not found, disputed, now strike was not over dispute between the Union and employer remotely subject was even arbi- provisions tration of the contract. The strike at issue sympathy support was negotia- sister unions employer; with the ting neither its causes nor issue subject underlying to the procedures settlement *10 408
provided by the employer contracts between the and re- spondents. The strike had neither purpose the nor the effect of denying evading or obligation an to arbi- depriving trate or of employer bargain. of its Thus, had the contract not contained a no-strike clause or had expressly clause sympathy excluded strikes, there would have no possible been for implying basis from the existence of an arbitration promise clause a not to strike that could have been violated sympathy strike in Gateway this case. Workers, Coal Co. Mine v. supra, at 382.10 10To the extent that the Appeals, 2d, Court of F. at 517 courts,
other Creek Workers, 2d, Island Co. Coal v. Mine 507 F. 653-654; Corp. at Armco Steel Workers, 2d, Mine F. at 505 1132-1133; Corp. Cutters, Amstar v. Meat Supp. 810, 337 F. 815 (ED La.), grounds, (CA5 rev’d other 1972); on F. 2d 1372 Workers, Inland 2d, 299-300, Steel Co. v. Mine 505 F. at have mandatory implies assumed that a arbitration clause a commitment engage sympathy strikes, not they wrong. to are Gateway Coal Co. v. Mine Workers itself furnishes addi- no support employer finally tional for the case, here. In that after concluding dispute over which the strike occurred was meaning arbitrable within the of the arbitration clause contained in a did clause, contract which not a also contain implied Court held that an undertaking contract to not strike, Co., on Teamsters based v. Lucas Flour U. S. (1962), permitted injunction an against on strike based Boys principles Markets. The critical determination Gateway was the dispute was arbitrable. This was the duty finding fulcrum for to not strike over that and for enjoining course, strike union had called. Of the au- thority enjoin stoppage depended the work on “whether the duty union under a contractual not to strike.” only finding preparatory 380. But that statement was made duty enjoined implied only to strike. The was then not strike dispute. precondition because was it over arbitrable same injunction also a strike existed Markets. Absent that factor, authority enjoin solely neither case furnishes solely Nor was the authorized because was alleged sympathy the Union strike called *11 express violated the of the contracts. provision to the courts assigns major Section of the Act role in enforcing but aside collective-bargaining agreements, from provisions the enforcement of arbitration by Boys such contracts, permitted within the limits Markets, that courts the Court has never indicated may enjoin actual or contract violations de- threatened spite In the Norris-LaGuardia Act. the course en- Taft-Hartley acting Congress rejected Act, proposal Act's prohibition that the Norris-LaGuardia against labor-dispute injunctions be lifted to the extent necessary in injunctive to make remedies available fed- eral for collective- purpose enforcing courts bargaining agreements. Refining Sinclair Co. v. See Atkinson, (dissenting supra, 205-208, at and 216-224 opinion). complaint allegation of the breaching obligation Union was its not to strike did not stated in the injunction. itself warrant an As was Sinclair dissent embraced in Markets: policy; general is no federal anti-strike “[T]here may brought § under although and a suit they breaches of against strikes are which, while any additional private contracts, do not threaten anti-injunction policy public such cases the policy, prevail.” U. S., Norris-LaGuardia should 225. also contained issue, however,
The contracts here at settling disputes for provisions and arbitration provisions interpretation application over the That clause. including the no-strike contracts, this and because in breach of contract it is claimed to be because claim itself arbitrable.
clause, others, like was subject enforcement in accord- procedures ance with the out set in the contracts. Here the Union struck, and the parties were in whether the sympathy strike violated the Union’s no-strike under- taking. Concededly, that issue was arbitrable. It was for the arbitrator to determine whether there was a remedy breach, well as the breach, employer was entitled to order requiring the Union if it arbitrate do refused to so. But the Union does deny duty not its arbitrate; it denies fact, employer ever demanded arbitration. However may be, does not follow that the District Court empowered only not to order but arbitration to en- join pending the strike decision of arbitrator, *12 despite express prohibition of 4 § the Norris- (a) Act against injunctions any LaGuardia prohibiting per- son from easing refusing any or perform to work or “[c] any to remain in If employment.” injunc- relation of tion against could issue the strike in this case, so proper any circumstances could a court enjoin other alleged breach contract pending exhaustion of the applicable grievance and arbitration provisions even though would otherwise one of violate express prohibitions of 4. The in such § court cases would if permitted, was to arbitrable, hold findings make hearings, fact,11 interpret applicable provisions of the contract and injunctions issue so as to restore the status or to quo, regulate otherwise relationship parties pending exhaustion of the ' process. arbitration deeply This would cut into the policy of the Norris-LaGuardia Act and make the courts potential participants in a wide range of arbitrable dis- putes many under the existing and future collective- (a). See Rule Fed. Civ. Proc. 52 bargaining just not for the contracts,12 purpose of en- forcing promises to which was the limit of arbitrate, Markets, Boys but purpose for the of preliminarily deal- ing with the merits of the factual and legal issues that are subjects for the arbitrator and of issuing injunctions that would otherwise be forbidden the Norris-LaGuar- dia Act.
This is not what the parties bargained Surely have for. it cannot be concluded here, Markets, in as it injunctions such pending arbitration are essential carry to promises out implement arbitrate and to private arrangements for the administration of the con- tract. As is typical, agreements in this case outline prearbitration procedures provide settlement if grievance “has not satisfactorily been .. . ad- justed,” arbitration may be they pro- had. Nowhere do vide for coercive action of judicial let alone kind, injunctions, short of the terminal decision of the arbi- parties trator. The agreed have submit to procedures and arbitrate, not to litigate. They have not contracted judicial preview for a of the facts and the law.13 they Had anticipated regulation additional relationships their pending arbitration, very it seems doubtful they would have resorted litigation rather than private arrangements. The unmistak- policy able of Congress stated (d), § S. C. *13 173§ (d), adjustment by is: “Final agreed a method
12This could embroil the preliminary district courts in massive injunction litigation. year In the most com which recent prehensive published, data have been more than 21 million workers in the United 150,000 States were covered under more than col lective-bargaining agreements. Statistics, Bureau of Labor Direc tory of National Employee (1973). Unions and Associations 87-88 preview grant Whether a district court's led it to or to refuse requested injunction pending arbitration, order, its in this case, would be appealable, (a)(1). S. C. §
upon by parties is declared to be the desirable method for settlement of disputes arising over the application or interpretation existing of an Coal collective-bargaining agreement.” Gateway Co. Workers, Mine parties’ at 377. But agreement to adjust or to arbitrate their differences themselves would be all prac- eviscerated if courts for tical purposes try disputes were and decide contractual preliminary injunction at the stage. suggests dissent injunctions should be au- in
thorized cases such as this at where violation, least in the court’s is view, sufficiently clear and the court is parties seeking sure win be- will fore But arbitrator. this would still hearings, involve findings, judicial interpretations of collective-bar- gaining It contracts. is incredible to believe always would courts view the facts and the contract as would; arbitrator and it difficult to believe that heavily arbitrator would not be wholly influenced or pre-empted by judicial views the facts and the mean- ing of procedure contracts if this is to permitted. Injunctions against strikes, temporary even injunctions, very often permanently issue; settle the other expense contexts time and would be discouraging factors to the losing party court considering whether to relitigate issue before the arbitrator.
With these in mind, considerations we far are from concluding that the arbitration will process be frustrated power unless the courts interlocutory have the to issue in- junctions pending arbitration in cases such as this or in others in whieh an arbitrable awaits decision. agree We with the Court of Appeals that is no there ne- cessity here, such as was found to be in the case Markets, policies accommodate the of the Norris-La- *14 requirements Guardia Act to § of 301 empowering by injunction sought the District Court to issue the employer. judgment Appeals
The of the Court of is affirmed.
So ordered. Mr. Bren- Stevens, Mr. Justice with whom Justice Powell nan, Mr. Justice and Mr. Justice Marshall, join, dissenting. undertaking
A is union’s contractual not to strike to quid undertaking pro quo employer’s normal grievances binding submit question arbitration. The into quid in this case is that pro quo whether severable by in- may two a enforce parts which federal court —one junction may which not. another my Brethren years ago eight Less than all three question quite joined opinion an which answered directly by district court has au- stating that whether a thority enjoin “depends whether a work on stoppage duty not the union under a to strike.” contractual Gateway Workers, Coal v. Mine 380.1 Co. S. union’s today only part Court a of the
The holds that quo prin- quid pro by injunction.2 is enforceable Union, Clerks 398 U. S. The Court read Markets v. Retail enjoin (a) empowers a federal court to to conclude that “§ duty at 381. not strike.” violations of contractual proposition. There was no dissent from part re agreement is the part of the The enforceable Gateway Coal, In dispute.” lating “over an arbitrable en properly however, my Court had held that the District Brethren only pending a strike not terminated tered an safety dispute, “pro underlying but also of an arbitrator’s decision his resolution required parties to abide both spectively of an arbitrator’s in defiance controversy.” 373. A strike Id., nevertheless, the dispute”; an arbitrable not be “over would award injunction against such propriety today recognizes the Court Ante, at 405. a strike.
414 for
cipal holding bases (1) are literal in- Court's terpretation of (2) the Norris-LaGuardia Act; its fear that judiciary federal would otherwise make a entry “massive” interpre- into the of business contract tation heretofore argu- reserved first arbitrators. The has rejected ment been in repeatedly in which the cases central concerns of Norris-LaGuardia Act were not 3 implicated. wholly The second is unrealistic and was implicitly rejected Gateway in Coal when the Court held that “a substantial question interpretation” of contractual equity jurisdiction. was a sufficient basis for federal 414 at 384. That case held that an employer might ambiguous enforce a quid pro today somewhat quo; holds portion quid Court of pro quo a is unen- no unambiguous may forceable matter how be. With I respect, all persuaded application am that a correct reasoning underlying in Boys the landmark decision Union, Markets v. Retail Clerks 398 requires U. S. a different result.
In I explain my order to conclusion first re- adequately, Boys view rationale Markets and then relate that by to the question presented rationale this case. expressed enforcing unambiguous The Court's concern that by enjoining clause sympathy might strike “embroil the injunction preliminary litigation,” ante, district courts in massive supposedly at 411 n. supported is the fact million 150,000 collective-bargain workers covered American were over ing give agreements figures po These 1972. some idea grievances may arise, number tential each of could which plainly Boys enjoinable lead to strike under which Markets. figures fight sympathy These do not shed on number of may express In the strikes which violate no-strike commitment. past years ante, dozen such cases have several over a arisen. See would, course, litigation 9. Future of this character n. by clarifying existing minimized amendments to no-strike clauses.
I Markets, Boys Eight years squarely before the Court precluded held that the Norris-LaGuardia Act a federal enjoining district court from a strike in breach of a no- obligation collective-bargaining agreement under a Sinclair requiring underlying dispute. arbitration of the Atkinson, Refining Co. 195.4 To authorize S.U. Markets, the Court was therefore required directly point to overrule a decision as well *16 holding language as to harmonize its with the Norris-LaGuardia Act. The Court found several reasons that compelled this result. injunctions enforcing noted that a con
First, Court tractual commitment to arbitrate a were not among against the abuses which the Norris-LaGuardia Act was aimed.5 of is clear from the This, course, declaration in policy itself,6 of the Norris-LaGuardia Act
4 Sinclair, One week after the decision in the Court decided Team Transit, 711, by -per citing sters v. Yellow curiam S. order only Sinclair, position Sinclair. dissenters in sub whose stantially Boys Markets, adopted in in Yellow Transit concurred bargaining agreement in this case because “the collective involved S., dispute.” 370 U. party does not bind either to arbitrate case, cases, from In as in it does not follow at 711-712. this those agreement availability contains of an when may it mandatory issue when does not. arbitration clause that one 20, See n. infra. Mills, holding v. Lincoln Referring in Textile Workers to the “rejected the con it had the Court stated that S. of the Norris-La- anti-injunction proscriptions tention relief, noting that refusal to type this of prohibited Act Guardia against which the parcel the abuses 'part and arbitrate was not itself manifests a id., the Act and Act was aimed/ encouraged. See arbitration should policy determination that omitted). (footnote at 242 108.” 398 U. U. S. C. § provides: 2 of the Act Section juris- determining in this Act and interpretation “In States, as such of the United authority of the courts and diction plainly which primary protect identifies a concern with ing ability organize collectively. labor's bargain and to It history injunctions was the against activity furtherance of union and col organization, recognition, lective bargaining, judicial rather than enforcement of collective-bargaining led to enact agreements, ment of the Norris-LaGuardia Act in 1932.7 As the jurisdiction, authority and limited, are herein defined public and policy hereby of the United States is declared as follows: prevailing
“Whereas under conditions, developed economic with governmental authority the aid of organize property for owners of corporate in the association, and other ownership forms of indi- unorganized commonly vidual helpless worker is to exercise actual liberty protect labor, of contract and thereby his freedom of acceptable to obtain wherefore, terms employment, and conditions of though fellows, he should be free to decline to associate with his necessary association, self-organiza- that he have full freedom of tion, designation representatives choosing, nego- of his own tiate the terms and employment, conditions of his and that he shall interference, restraint, be free from the employers or coercion of labor, agents, designation or their representatives of such or self-organization or in other purpose concerted activities for the *17 bargaining of protection; therefore, collective or other mutual aid or following of, upon, jurisdiction definitions and limitations authority hereby of the courts of the United States are enacted.” 47 Stat. 29 U. C. 102. S. § 7 Boys quoted In approval Markets the following Court with statement Special the neutral of members Atkinson-Sinclair Committee of the American Bar Association Labor Relations Law Section: “ 'Any proposal subject injunctive which would unions to relief must take account of the opposition Act and the Norris-LaGuardia expressed issuing injunctions in that Act disputes. to the of in labor Nevertheless, the reasons behind the Act seem Norris-LaGuardia scarcely applicable to situation ... which a strike in viola- [in collective-bargaining agreement enjoined]. tion of a is The Act was passed primarily widespread because of dissatisfaction with the tendency judges enjoin of concerted activities accordance with depend “doctrines of tort law which made the lawfulness of judicial upon policy.” of social and views economic [Citation Court observed in Boys Markets, the climate of labor relations has been transformed since the passage of the Norris-LaGuardia Act, 250-251, and “the central purpose of the Norris-LaGuardia toAct foster growth viability organizations labor hardly is retarded —if anything, goal this is a re advanced — medial device that merely obligation enforces the the union freely undertook under specifically enforce agreement able disputes Id., submit to arbitration.” (footnote at 252-253 omitted). equally It is clear that present implicate case does not the central concerns Act; Norris-LaGuardia for it also deals with enforceability agreement a collective-bargaining rather than with the process by agreements which such negotiated are and formed. emphasized the Court the relevance of the
Second, subsequently enacted jurisdiction statute enlarging of federal courts to grant disputes. relief labor Sec- (a) tion 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act expressly jurisdiction authorized federal of suits for vi- olation of collective-bargaining agreements without re- spect to the amount controversy citizenship or the parties. provision That was viewed as supporting the collective-bargaining for employers would process, have more incentive to enter agreements into un- with against Where is used omitted.] a strike in breach contract, subjected union is not judicially in this fashion to created limitations on its freedom simply compelled of action but is comply previously with limitations to agreed. which it has More- over, underlying dispute arbitrable, where the the union is not deprived practicable pressing only means of its claim but is required to impartial submit the tribunal that it has *18 ” agreed purpose.’ S., establish for this 398 U. at 253 n. quoting Report Special Committee, of Atkinson-Sinclair American Bar Association Labor Proceedings Relations Law Section— (1963). they mutually they
ions if were than if were enforceable specific of not. With reference to value an enforce- able grievance commitment to arbitrate disputes, emphasized importance Markets of the union’s no- quid pro quo strike commitment for em- as the ployer’s undertaking disputes submit to arbitration.8 in many And the em- collective-bargaining agreements, previously “As indicated, obligation, express we have a no-strike implied, quid pro quo or undertaking by employer is the for an submit process disputes to the See of arbitration. Any Mills, Textile Workers supra, Union v. Lincoln at in 455. employers arrangement centive for to enter neces into such an is sarily by dissipated principal if expeditious and most method obligation which can be enforced is eliminated. While true, of respondent contends, is course as other of avenues redress, such an damages, open action for remain to an would aggrieved employer, damages dispute an award of after has been settled is illegal no substitute an strike. immediate halt to Furthermore, prosecuted damages during an action for after a or only aggravate labor would tend to industrial strife and delay early employer resolution the difficulties and between (footnotes S., omitted). Accord, union.” 398 U. at 247-248 Wil Gateway Coal, 19; liam E. Arnold Co. Carpenters, 417 U. S. 381-382, at n. S., 14. The relied upon by Court another statement the neutral members Special of the Atkinson-Sinclair Committee: “ existing laws, employers may ‘Under maintain dam- an action for ages resulting may discipline from a strike in breach contract employees many cases, however, In involved. these neither of alternatives be Discharge will feasible. inex- strikers often pedient qualified replacements because of a lack or because of damage relationships the adverse effect on plant. within the remedy may unsatisfactory employer’s also be because the are losses often hard employer may to calculate and because hesitate to exacerbate relations with the bringing damage union action. Hence, injunctive only relief often will effective means remedy pledge which breach the no-strike and thus effectu- ” policy.’ 248-249, ate federal labor 17, quoting n. Report Special Committee, supra, Atkinson-Sinclair 7,n. at 242. *19 ployer agreed mandatory only has to arbitration beyond exchange for a clause that extends no-strike simply strikes over It disputes.'9 arbitrable is therefore as the Court that wrong the strike argue, does, this case could not had “of purpose have or effect Ante, If depriving employer bargain.” of his at 408. sympathy strike in no- this case the Union’s violates public the same interest in an enforceable pledge, quid quo pro present here in Boys as Markets. The Union that this strike not contends, did violate however, its or at yet that it has not been decided contract, least, does. portion this the rationale Accordingly, applies only Markets to the extent of the cer- tainty sympathy that the strike falls within clause. upon the Court relied
Third, a line of cases in which language Act Norris-LaGuardia had not been given effect. controlling Several decisions held had injunctions federal courts could issue in labor dis putes to compel employers and unions to fulfill their obligations Railway under the Act,10 Labor notwithstand ing “the general provisions earlier and more Nor Virginian ris-LaGuardia Act.” System Fed R. v. Co. eration, 300 U. 515, S. 563. Accord, Railroad Trainmen Howard, v. 768, 774; S.U. Graham Locomotive v. Firemen, 338 U. 232, S. 237-240. These cul decisions minated in Railroad Trainmen Chicago, v. & I. R. R. Co., 353 U. 30, 39-42, S. which held a court federal enjoin could a strike a railroad union over a subject mandatory Railway arbitration under the La bor Act. The Norris-LaGuardia Act was held not bar the of “the because need accommodate 9 Feller, Theory of Bargaining Agree A General the Collective ment, 61 663, (1973). L. Calif. Rev. 757-760 577, as amended, Stat. 48 Stat. 45 U. S. C. 151-188. §§ part adopted when both were statutes,
two Id., Chicago at 42. legislation.” See of labor pattern Union, 402 U. S. Transportation R. Co. & N. W. *20 Mills, Lincoln U. S. In Textile Workers 581-584. to hold the same rationale the Court relied on 448, Act con Management Relations (a) Labor of the § grant courts to the district jurisdiction upon ferred clause in a an arbitration specific union enforcement of Court, Speaking for collective-bargaining agreement. history legislative noted Douglas Mr. Justice but cloudy confusing” of “is somewhat (a) § par stated that once the report had conference its en collective-bargaining ties had made a agreement, “ processes of the left to usual forcement ‘should be ” No. Rep. H. 452, quoting law.’ R. Conf. (1947). He added: Cong., Sess., 80th 1st pains took “Both the and the House Senate processes by pro- law’ provide for ‘the usual equivalent visions which were substantial present form. Both the (a) § 301 its Senate Report Report primary and the House indicate a should be employees concern that unions as well as bound to collective But there bargaining contracts. pro- was also a broader concern —a concern with a making for such agreements cedure enforceable party. point courts At either one the Senate Rep. 80th Report, No. 1st Sess. [S. Cong., (1947),] p. 15, ‘We states, aggrieved feel that party right should also have a of action in the Fed- policy eral courts. is completely Such in accord purpose with the of Wagner Act which the Su- preme Court compel declared was “to employers to collectively bargain with their employees to the end employment that an binding par- on both contract, should be made ties, ....”’ in promoting “Congress also interested collec- not to bargaining agreements tive that ended with supra, p. The 16 states: strike. Senate Report, “ 'If agreements unions can break with relative such do agreements then not tend sta- impunity, bilize industrial relations. execution agreement promote industrial does not itself peace. advantage employer The chief which an can reasonably expect from a collective labor agreement operation is assurance uninterrupted during the term agreement. Without some effective method assuring freedom from economic warfare term of is little reason agreement, there why employer would desire to such a sign *21 contract. “ to encourage of making 'Consequently, agreements promote peace and to industrial through performance faithful by the agree- collective parties, ments affecting interstate commerce be should en- forceable in the courts. Federal Our amendment provide would by for suits unions as legal entities and against unions legal entities Federal in the courts in disputes affecting commerce.’ “Thus collective bargaining contracts were made 'equally binding and parties.’ enforceable on both Id., p. 15. As stated in the House R. Report, [H. Rep. No. 80th 245, Cong., 1st (1947),] p. Sess. provision the new 'makes labor organizations equally responsible employers with for contract violations provides suit against either the other in the United States district courts.’ To repeat, Senate supra, p. Report, up philos- summed ophy of §301 as follows: 'Statutory of recognition agreement collective as a valid, binding, enforceable contract logical and necessary step. responsibility of degree higher promote
It will and will to such parties agreements, upon the peace.’ thereby industrial promote dis- grievance to arbitrate “Plainly agreement not to quo for quid pro agreement is the putes does legislation in this Viewed light, strike. federal courts jurisdiction more than confer pol- It a federal expresses organizations. over labor agree- these icy that federal courts should enforce organizations on of or labor against behalf ments only peace can best obtained and that industrial way.” (footnote S., in that at 453-455 U. omitted). jurisdiction argument direct to the
With reference Mr. Jus- was withdrawn the Norris-LaGuardia Act, pointed though tice out that even a literal Douglas reading might of that statute within bring the policy justification there no for restricting its terms, (a) damages per- and subjecting specific § suits disputes formance arbitrate agreement inapposite provisions to the Act. 353 at 458. holding
These decisions and the Markets it- make clear the literal self, wording the Norris- Act insuperable specific LaGuardia is not an obstacle enforcement a no-strike in accordance commitment *22 11 processes “the usual with of the law.” 11 upon Congress The Court relies the fact when enacted Management Act, rejected the Labor it Relations considered and proposal that would have rendered the Act Norris-LaGuardia any inapplicable proceeding involving the violation of a collective- agreement. bargaining Ante, argument at 409. The that con gressional rejection repeal of a broad of the Norris-LaGuardia Act precluded fully accommodation of two Acts was canvassed in Sinclair, accepted by rejected by where was the Court and the dis senters, substantially by whose views later adopted were the Court
423 Boys Markets stressed one anomalous conse- Fourth, quence In many jurisdictions Sinclair. state a no- by injunction. clause be could enforced provide §301 enactment which was intended to (a), an additional forum for the enforcement of collective- bargaining possible agreements,12 made it to remove litigation state to the forum,13 federal and then to fore- any injunctive close relief reliance on the Norris- LaGuardia Act. 398 U. at 243-247. This incon- S., gruous result could not easily squared with the intent of Congress §in 301 (a) confer concurrent jurisdiction upon the state courts. That argument applies with equal force to this case.
Finally, Boys emphasized Markets strong federal policy favoring settlement of labor disputes arbitra- tion. 398 S.,U. at 242-243. from Since, apart statu- tory authorization, this method disputes of settling only available when authorized by agreement between parties, policy favoring equally arbitration favors making of enforceable agreements to arbitrate. For reason, Boys emphasized Markets impor- also tance of ensuring enforceability quid pro union’s quo employer’s agreement submit disputes Id., to arbitration. at A 247-249, 251-253. sympathy strike in violation of a no-strike clause does Boys Refining Atkinson, Markets. Sinclair Co. 370 v. S.U. 204-210; id., (Brennan, J., dissenting); Markets, at 220-225 S., today U. 398 at 249. The Court nevertheless this revives candidly argument, citing Sinclair, the overruled decision in arguing, opinion case, as did the in that further ac Management commodation between the Labor Act and Relations Act will Norris-LaGuardia result wholesale enforcement of by injunction. supra, clauses at Sinclair, See 209-210. Carpenters, 20; William E. Arnold Co. Dowd U. Courtney, Box Co. v. S. 502. Corp. Lodge 735, Avco v. Aero S.U. 557.
424 but if the arbitration directly process,
not frustrate the does against strike, such a it is not enforceable clause policy motivating employers basic of the more frustrate an giving them effec- agree binding to to arbitration during the uninterrupted operation tive “assurance of 14 Boys Mar- portion agreement.” term of the This of entirely present kets is therefore applicable not to impor- to consider is essential Accordingly, case. To holding Boys Markets. in of to the tance arbitration I now turn. question II the arbitration Boys Markets protects decision a a strike over enjoin A authorized to process. court is contractually bound parties are grievance which find- upon authority conditioned a arbitrate, but that is inis so that the strike ing provide, that the contract does further that issuance violation of the agreement, ordinary principles injunction warranted an is Id., plainly conditions stated equity. at 254.15 These pro- Boys Markets demonstrate in the interest in simply an is not end tecting process the arbitration Mills, S., us in at 454. As the Court reminded Lincoln “ Gateway proc Coal, parties’ objective using the arbitration ‘the goal pro primarily uninterrupted ess their common further agreement, agreement serve their duction under the make the ” 379, quoting specialized S., Steelworkers needs.’ U. at Co., Warrior & S. 582. U. Gulf Boys Gateway en Coal later extended Markets forcing implied no-strike clause coextensive with arbitration question arbitrability in a was itself a clause case which the question interpretation.” at “substantial of contractual preconditions did alter the 380-384. It not fundamental injunction: to final and Markets a contractual commitment commitment, arbitration, binding corresponding no-strike 380-384, Id., ordinary equity. principles of satisfaction of 387-388.
425 itself which exists large apart at from other funda- mental aspects of our labor policy. national
On any precondition one hand, an absolute of Markets injunction obligation. contractual A court may not order parties agreed arbitration unless the have to that process; nor can the court require parties accept an arbitrator’s they agreed decision unless have Id., by to be bound it. Gateway at 253-255. Accord, Coal, 414 U. atS., 374, 380-384. If the union reserves the right to resort to at the self-help conclusion arbitration process, agreement be respected.16 must power The by court’s is limited contours of the agree ment parties.17 between the
On the other hand, procedure the arbitration is not merely an it exercise; performs important purpose determining actually underlying agreement what the means applied specific parties to a If setting. agreed by have to be bound decision, arbitrator’s which an justify injunction against reasons a strike that impair ability equally would his to reach a decision must justify parties an to abide requiring decision that a strike is in violation hardly The clause.18 arbitration mechanism would re- resolving tain its if respect disputes as a method of 16Associated Gen. Illinois Illinois Contractors v. Conference of Teamsters, (CA7 1972). F. 454 2d 1324 particular, implied In an no-strike clause does not extend to sympathy ante, 407-408, strikes. See at and n. 10. injunction may recognizes that The Court an issue to enforce an decision that a strike is violation of the no-strike arbitrator’s Longshoremen Ante, Assn., v. clause. 405. See Marine Trade J., concurring part dissenting (Douglas, S. 77-79 Longshore Workers, S. Assn. General part); New Orleans S. Dunau, (CA5 1968), 828; denied, 2d 369 Three F. cert. S. (1969). Arbitration, Labor L. 473-477 Problems in 55 Ya. Rev. less than the process significance had product end process itself. is to remove process net effect of the arbitration applies in the as it ambiguity agreement
completely But if the unforeseen, undescribed, set of facts. to an or in the and described con- specific situation is foreseen no need precision with there is tract itself such reasonable would be interpretation arbitrator, agreement prior such give legal the same effect to *25 In question this the case, to the arbitrator’s decision.19 no-strike clause sympathy the strike violates the whether of If court benefit is arbitrable issue. the had the an em- the issue in of the arbitrator’s resolution of favor decision it could re- just it could enforce that ployer, parties the submit the issue to arbitration. And quire to unambiguous that there agreement plainly if the were so to arbitrator, could be no fide issue submit to the bona authority parties’ there must be the same to enforce the bargain pending arbitrator’s final decision.20 the granted The Court asserts that interim relief not be should collective-bargaining agreement expressly provides the for it. unless Ante, argument against 411. The same could have been made Boys holding Markets, parties Sinclair left free to since endow end power the arbitrator with to order an to strikes over arbitrable Indeed, Special grievances. the union members Atkinson- of suggested provisions such as an Sinclair Committee contractual Special Sinclair. Report alternative to abandonment of of Atkinson- Committee, supra, Sinclair n. at 239. Stokely-Van Camp, Thacker, Supp. 715, Cf. Inc. v. 394 F. 719- Boys (WD 1975); Note, The Applicability Mar Wash. Injunctions Line, to a L. kets to Cross Picket 76 Col. Refusals (1976). necessary It not that an in Rev. 136-140 is to hold may is junction scope issue if the of the clause not a no-strike clearly agreement arbitrable If the contains no arbitration issue. whatsoever, of the clause would not clause enforcement by encouraging employers agree arbitration to arbi promote Furthermore, exchange for a no-strike clause. even tration clause arguments against Union advances three this con- (1) interpretation collective-bargain- clusion: of the ing agreement is the province arbitrator; exclusive injunction (2) erroneously that an pending entered arbi- effectively tration deprive right will the union of decision; before arbitrator can render his (3) that the core purpose is the Norris-LaGuardia Act injunction to eliminate the against risk of an a law- ful I Although strike.21 acknowledge the force these I think they arguments, are insufficient to take this case outside the rationale Markets.
The Steelworkers trilogy22 collective- establishes bargaining agreement submitting questions all contract interpretation to deprives courts of arbitrator agreement if the clause, contains an arbitration but clause does clearly question not to the agree- extend whether strike violates ment, parties’ then the commitment enforcement of the no-strike through clause enforcement of arbitrator’s final decision also remains unclear. argues The Union also barred that an should be be party seeking usually required cause accept arbitration *26 complains pending condition of he the arbitra which decision of the rule, employer normally tor. The receives the benefit of this since it is the that grievances. union initiates most The Union contends the pending fairness dictates that it the same benefit receive However, grievances. origins its employer outcome of the rule has production con go employer’s the need for to under the forward through pending agreement trol arbitration. See clarification the supra, justification hardly supports, Feller, n. at 737-740. This undermines, position. but rather the Union’s argument as a threat “massive The Court advances the same by preliminary injunction litigation” employers unions both argument disputes. Ante, over all at n. 12. This arbitrable simply ignores special of the no-strike clause status quid pro quo arbitration clause. 564, 567-568; Mfg. Co., Steelworkers v. American 363 U. S. 582-583; Co., S., Steel Warrior 363 U. at Steelworkers v. & Gulf Enterprise Corp., workers 363 U. S. 597-599. power interpret agreement prevent
almost all to dispute submission of a arbitration or to refuse en- forcement of an award. Markets itself arbitrator’s repeated warning not for it was the courts usurp the functions of 242- the arbitrator. Gateway injunction may 243. And Coal held that an protect issue to the arbitration if “sub- process even question interpretation” stantial of contractual must be is answered to determine the strike over an arbi- whether grievance. trable In S., at 382-384. each interpreta- between cases, however, these choice was agreement by interpretation tion the court or arbitrator; a decision that was not arbi- properly precluded or not have trable, arbitrated, would to the con- interpretation agreement according an of the in- grievance procedure. present case, tractual In the an by the terim determination of the no-strike question arbi- usurps precludes court neither nor a decision By injunction pending trator. issuance of an definition, supplant the arbitrator’s decision does not decision the ineffec- Indeed, he otherwise would have made. damages remedy pending for strikes arbi- tiveness employer’s argument tration that lends force to injunction.23 court does not oust the arbitrator he proper of his function but fulfills a role that never served. however,
The Union’s second is that the arbi- point, rarely quickly enough decision trator will render his effectively from erroneously issued prevent union of to strike. The Union depriving right its upon recog- decisions of this Court that particularly relies can temporary injunction quickly nize that even a end *27 only that argument a strike.24 But this demonstrates 23 supra. 8, See n. Curry, 550; Laborers v. S. Liner v. Construction to be must be arbitration, effective, prompt, not the federal courts must be deprived entirely jurisdiction of grant equitable injunction relief. Denial of an when a agreement may just strike violates the effects have employer to an devastating injunc- as the of an issuance may tion have to union the when the not vio- strike does agreement. late the sympathy strike Furthermore, a not directly does further the economic interests striking members of the or local contribute reso- to the any dispute lution of between that or local, its members, employer.25 and the On the contrary, the source of a new if the which, goes forward, strike will impose on pub- costs strikers, employer, and lic of prospect any without direct of benefit to these A parties. sym- rule that authorizes postponement of a pathy strike pending arbitrator's clarification critically no-strike will not impair clause the vital inter- ests of if striking right local even to strike is up- held, interrupted and will avoid the production costs if the arbitrator concludes that clause applies.
Jafco, Inc., Curry U. S. judgment 308. held that a of a Supreme requiring injunction Court temporary State issuance a against picketing labor was final hence in this reviewable Court. Liner against picketing held state-court labor was despite arising this reviewable in Court a claim of mootness from completion cases, picketed construction at the site. In both jurisdiction claim on merits pre-empted was that state-court by finality holdings The federal law. and mootness in each case partly protect rested on need to policy federal labor from frus by temporary injunctions erroneously tration issued state courts. point It was at temporary this final effect of a labor injunction became relevant. sympathy In support this case the strike is in other local unions of same parties, however, international. significance attach no to that fact. *28 in- the Norris-LaGuardia Act cannot be
Finally, er- terpreted to immunize the union from all risk an roneously Boys Markets itself sub- injunction. issued jected injunction upon the union to the risk of an entered arbi- judge’s dispute a erroneous conclusion that the was trable and that the strike was in violation of the no-strike Gateway subjected 398 U. at 254. Coal clause, S., still court there entered greater risk, union to a for the de- implied to enforce an no-strike clause injunction an arbitrability and dispute, of the spite the fact that pre- legality dispute, of the strike over hence the interpreta- of contractual question “substantial sented a The id., 10. 384; see at n. S., at tion.” Norris- give the the Union would reading that strict this result.26 permitted have Act not LaGuardia would in conflicting determinations the risk of emphasizes The Court conflicting determinations case, ignores the risk of but this Gateway Boys Markets, the District Court In Coal. Markets and dispute arbitrability and required to determine the was Gateway Coal, the Dis strike, not, clear or and legality of the arbitrability dispute of the only that the need have found trict Court question of con substantial legality of the strike were “a and the The likelihood all. interpretation,” hence not clear at tractual vastly larger under injunction against lawful strike was a of an Gateway requiring the Dis a standard Coal than under standard of the no-strike clause. find a clear violation of trict Court Gateway misreading Coal point by obscures the latter Court dispute properly because the was issued to hold that Gateway 408-409, Ante, But arbitrable. n. 10. that case was question properly in- the union expressly held that the whether Coal stoppages because of unsafe mine condi- provision for work voked question interpretation, and of contractual tions “a substantial was collective-bargaining agreement explicitly commits to resolution meaning ap- disagreements 'as to the impartial umpire all ” agreement.’ this at 384 plication provisions omitted). Consistently holding, this the arbitrator (footnote with underlying not arbitra- that the remained free to decide support do not the con- These however, considerations, temporarily sympathy that a strike should clusion agreement enjoined collective-bargaining whenever *29 clause. no-strike and an arbitration contains a clause Act between the Norris-LaGuardia accommodation Act (a) Management and the Labor Relations § judge apply the usual of the processes allows “the place law” but not to take the arbitrator. Be- the risk in expert cause the federal less labor judge, may matters than an con- general misconstrue arbitrator, I injunction tract or would that no tem- agree language, porary order first restraining giving should issue without union adequate opportunity present the evidence upon and particularly proper interpreta- the argument, tion of the the collective-bargaining agreement; judge injunction should not issue an without convincing evi- the dence that strike is clearly within protect clause.27 efficacy of arbi- Furthermore, tration, parties such should require the immediately submit the issue to the contractual if and the union so procedure, stage the last requests, expedited and upon an schedule assures a decision by the arbitrator soon practicable. as Such stringent conditions would insure that in only strikes violation of would agreement enjoined and that the union’s access to process arbitration would not be foreclosed by the combined effect of a temporary injunction and protracted grievance procedures. Boys Finally, as enjoined ble and hence that was not violation agreement. course, possible Of it is disagree that an arbitrator would with the court even when the clearly latter finds pro the strike to be But case, hibited. in that the arbitrator’s determination would provided govern, ordinary withstands standard of review Enterprise arbitrators’ awards. See Steelworkers Corp., S.,U. at 597-599. Markets, equitable conditions of relief would normal have to be met.28 opinion
Like the decision in this re- Markets, on my experience the one confidence that flects, hand, during the decades Act was since Norris-LaGuardia passed dissipated any legitimate has concern about impartiality of judges disputes between labor federal my on and continued rec- management, other, ognition familiarity fact judges have less expertise than arbitrators and administrators who regularly specialized work in this area. The decision in Boys Markets requires an accommodation between the Norris-LaGuardia Act and Labor Re- Management I lations Act. would hold only that the terms of that accommodation entirely do not deprive the courts federal *30 of all power to grant any relief to an threat- employer, irreparable ened with injury from sympathy clearly in violation 'of a collective-bargaining agree- regardless of ment, equities of his claim injunc- tive relief pending arbitration.
Since in my view the Court of Appeals erroneously held that the District jurisdiction Court had no enjoin the Union’s sympathy I would reverse and re- strike, mand for consideration of question whether employer is entitled to injunction. Sinclair, 370
will the employer will suffer more from ance of an caused or will ciples or have been threatened “ the union from its issuance.’” ‘[T]he equity injunction District S.,U. cause —whether irreparable at 228 (Brennan, Court would be breaches must, will be injury to warranted are committed; course, occurring denial of an J., dissenting). employer; consider whether under whether and will ordinary prin- and whether they continue, quoting have than issu-