*1 COMPLETE AUTO TRANSIT, INC., REIS et et al. al. Argued May 79-1777. February 4, 1981 198 1 Decided Stewart, Court, Brennan, J., opinion which delivered J., Blackmun, Stevens, JJ., joined. Powell, White, Marshall, *2 post, judgment, opinion concurring part concurring and filed an Rehnquist, opinion, J., Burger, J., in which p. dissenting 417. filed a C. post, p. joined, him argued petitioners. With
R. Ian Hunter the cause for Holmguist, C. John Jr. the briefs was filed a brief for argued Hiram S. Grossman the cause and respondents.* opinion the Court. delivered Brennan
Justice Co., Refining (1962), S. 238 Atkinson v. Sinclair 370 U. (a) Management Re- § the Court held that the Labor Act, 1947, lations 61 Stat. 29 U. does (a), S. C. action individual union officers authorize members when their a no- violating and union is liable for agreement. strike clause in a We ex- collective-bargaining pressly question reserved the might whether an damages against maintain suit for “individual defendants personal acting not behalf union but in their and capacity” “unauthorized, nonunion individual where their ac- provision tion” violated the no-strike collective-bar- gaining agreement. S., granted We n. 7. cer- important question tiorari to decide this of federal labor law. 449 ü.
I companies engaged Petitioners are in the transporta- three tion truck of motor parties vehicles. All three are to a collective-bargaining agreement with the Teamsters Union operations covers respective their in Flint, facilities Woll, Gold, George * J. Albert Laurence and filed a brief for Kaufmann Congress American Federation of Labor Organiza Industrial urging tions as amicus curiae affirmance. Respondents petitioners
Mich. are mem- bers Local Teamsters Union 332. The collective-bar- gaining subjects contains a clause1 and no-strike disputes binding all to a grievance procedure. arbitration 8, 1976, respondents On June commenced a wildcat strike, because they believed that “the union rep was properly them in . resenting negotiations . . for amendments to the bargaining agreement.” collective F. 2d (CA6 1980). Soon thereafter, petitioners brought (a) this action in the United States District the Eastern District of Michigan, injunctive seeking “damages relief and the [employees], in their capacity, all losses out of the arising unlawful work stoppage and for at *3 torneys App. fees.” alleged Petitioners the strike was neither approved by authorized nor union and, there fore, sought no damages from the union. See 614 F. 2d, 1115; App. 18, 20-21. After a hearing, the District Court found that “the issue which had caused the stoppage work because, not was arbitrable” .it' dispute was “an internal be tween factions the Local,” App. to for 15a-16a, Pet. Cert. and accordingly preliminary denied injunctive relief, citing Markets, Boys Inc. Clerks, v. Retail (1970).2 U. S. 235 provides 1 The no-strike clause Employers Unions “[t]he agree that strike, tie-up there shall be no equipment, of or slowdowns part walkouts employees, on Employer any nor shall the use legal method of lockout or proceeding using possible without first all means settlement, provided of a Agreement, for in controversy this might which arise.” See Complaint Exhibit A to Complete Auto Transit, Inc., 24r-25. 2 Boys Markets, Clerks, Inc. S., v. Retail this 253-254, 398 U. Court held that the prohibition Norris-LaGuardia Act’s enjoining apply strikes does not where the “collective-bargaining contract contains mandatory grievance adjustment or procedure,” arbitration where the grievance subject arbitration, requirements and where the usual for equitable obtaining relief have been satisfied. settlement the “internal hearings and Following additional stop- that “the work concluded dispute,” the District dispute between only of a the Local because continued page for the strikers amnesty [petitioners] [and over that] to Pet. for Cert. App. 16a. issue this was arbitrable.” injunction, enjoining preliminary court, therefore, issued obeyed Respondents order strike. continuation 21, 1976. on June to work and returned moved respondents pre- to dissolve the later, Nine months the complaint dismiss for dam- liminary injunction intervening decision in on this Court’s ages. Relying Buffalo Steelworkers, S. 397 (1976),3 the District Forge Co. v. injunction work ground Court dissolved the App. an arbitrable precipitated issue. stoppage was petitioners’ also for The court dismissed Pet. 18a. Cert. “an that, for not sue damages, claim holding monetary relief breach of the collective his . . . whether the union also bargaining agreement Id., be liable.” at 16a. Appeals
The United States Court for the Sixth Circuit injunction, reversed District Court’s dissolution of the holding injunction may be granted that an even where the issue which precipitated pro- strike was nonarbitrable issue, vided an other simple legality arbitrable than the *4 the strike caused the continuation of the strike with itself, 3 Forge Steelworkers, S., Co. v. (emphasis 428 at 407 in U. Buffalo original), properly this Court held that the Federal Court refused District enjoin sympathy any dispute to strike “the because strike was not over employer subject remotely between the Union and the that was even the provisions of the that, arbitration contract.” The Court further held though “dispute sympathy even whether the strike Union’s violated the arbitrable,” undertaking injunctive . no-strike . . was relief was warranted, deeply policy since to hold otherwise “would cut into the potential participants Norris-LaGuardia Act and make the courts in a range Id., disputes.” wide of arbitrable at 410. “compel purpose [ling] employer concede on the issue.”
arbitrable 614 F. at 1114. Petitioners do not 2d, part seek review of this of Appeals’ ruling.4 of the Court of Appeals Court District Court’s affirmed the dis- petitioners’ missal claim for from individual union members. legislative on Relying principally his- tory of Congress § concluded that Appeals through had not intended 301 to a cause of § “create action damages against individual union members for breach agreement.” a no-strike at 1116. 2d, agree. F. We
II Since Textile Mills, Workers v. Lincoln S. 448 U. it has been (1957), settled 301(a)5 more does than jurisdiction confer on federal courts decide alleg- lawsuits ing of collective-bargaining violations agreements. Section (a) also “authorizes body federal courts fashion a federal law enforcement these collective bargaining agreements.” Textile Mills, Workers v. Lincoln S.,U. express We no view Appeals’ ruling whether the Court of was correct. Section as set forth in part: pertinent U. S. C. states in “(a) Suits for violation of contracts between an and a labor organization representing employees industry affecting in an commerce as defined in chapter, any this or between organizations, such labor brought any be district having jurisdiction court of the United States of the parties, respect controversy without to the amount in or without regard to citizenship parties.
“(b) Any organization labor represents which employees industry in an affecting commerce as chapter any employer defined this whose activities affect chapter commerce as defined in this shall bound Any agents. the acts of its organization such sue or be sued entity as an behalf of the whom it represents in the Any money courts of the United judgment against States. organi- a labor zation in a district court of the United States only shall be enforceable against organization entity assets, and shall not be enforceable member or his assets.” *5 analysis- for fashion- of mode Mills defined Lincoln 451. as follows: law body federal ing this fur- expressly Act Relations Management Labor “The out what points It law. substantive nishes some situations. Other do in certain may or parties statutory express penumbra will lie problems statutory sanction express lack Some will mandates. legisla- policy at the looking be solved but will effectuate that will remedy and tion fashioning de- will be range inventiveness judicial policy. Id., problem.” nature of the by the termined any freewheeling Mills did not envision “Lincoln course, Of might be find to what the federal courts inquiry into pronounce rule, congressional irrespective desirable most Em & Restaurant v. Hotel Howard Johnson Co. ments.” it is clear that Rather, 417 U. ployees, defer (a) substantial fashioning § federal law under intention. See be paid congressional should to revealed ence 248-249. Refining Co., Atkinson Sinclair atS., Atkinson, Congress Court relied on the intent union members (b) to hold that individual passing § has breached the sued where the provision agreement. of its collective-bargaining no-strike “[a]ny money (b) pertinent states in part Section a labor . be enforce- against organization . . shall judgment organization only against entity and able as an not be enforceable assets, shall Thus, Atkinson, assets.” member his we noted that Congress discharging duty imposed “in us formulate (a) § govern strongly law we suits, federal are guided by give niggardly (b).” do not reading consulted Accordingly, Ibid. we legislative relied on the history which made (b) it “clear third th[e] deeply (b) clause was a congressional felt reac- §301 [of ] tion against Danbury Hatters . expression case . . and an
407 of legislative of determination that the aftermath ... permitted decision was not Id., to recur.” 248.6 at Similarly, the deciding question presented case, in this we “discharg the duty Congress imposed tous formulate [e] id., govern federal law to 301 (a) suits,” 248-249, by § at looking to “penumbra” (b), S., 301 353 U. by history.
informed its legislative See Howard Johnson Co. v. Hotel & Restaurant Employees, supra, at by
Section (b) 301 prohibits money judgment its terms a against entered a union from being against enforced individ- ual union members. Refining Co., See Atkinson Sinclair v. supra. It suppose thereby is mistake to Congress suggested negative implication employees should be held liable where their union is not liable for the See strike. Corp. Sinclair Oil Oil, Workers, v. Atomic Chemical & F. 2d (CA7 1971). Although lengthy and complex, legislative clearly history of 301 reveals Congress’ intent to shield liability from damages aris- ing from their breach of the no-strike clause a collective- bargaining agreement, whether or not union participated in or illegality. authorized the Indeed, Congress intended this result even though might it leave unable Danbury In the ease, Hatters damage “an antitrust treble action was brought against large members, including number of union union officers agents, to recover employer’s nationwide, from them the losses in a boycott union-directed of his hats. The party, union was not named as a judgment nor was entered large money judgment it. A was instead, entered, against the individual participating defendants for plan headquarters’ 'emanating by knowingly from , authorizing ... delegating authority to officers to- do the acts involved. debates, Ball, sponsors, Senator one of 301, ‘by the Act’s declared that § providing legal that the union sue and entity, be sued as a for a viola contract, liability tion and the liewill union assets only, prevent Danbury repetition will many Hatters case, in which ” members lost their Atkinson Refining Co., homes.’ v. Sinclair S., 370 U. Savings Danbury Loewe, Bank 248. See v. (1917); U. S. 357 Loewe, (1915); v. U. Lawlor, Lawlor S. 522 Loewe v. Refining Sinclair Atkinson See his losses. recover for Co., supra, at 248. review begins with a §of history legislative adoption year prior efforts
congressional the Case Act. Section 10 of Management Relations Labor (1946), both passed by 2d Sess. Cong., 4908, 79th bill, H. R. was the President but vetoed Congress, Houses of *7 Co. Box § 301.” Charles Dowd of antecedent “the direct (1962). Since 10 “contained Courtney, 502, 509 § ... of provisions same substantially the the provisions history ibid., highly is in ascer- relevant 301,” legislative its § id., taining respect with see congressional intent § 511-512. responsi “to of 10 was establish a purpose mutual
The in collective-bargaining process has resulted when the bility Rep. of (remarks 838 Cong. (1946) 92 Rec. contract.” collec Case). provided the House, § As introduced in each tive-bargaining “against to be agreements enforceable parties adopted bill which the thereto.”7 Senate provided: Section Case bill mutually equally binding be collective-bargaining “All contracts shall equity against parties in and enforceable either at law or each of contrary thereto, any notwithstanding. to the In the event other law any agreement any or of contained in such of a breach of such contract remedy then, any by party thereto, in other either addition to contract existing equity, in law or for such or remedies either suit for by equity may injunctive in be the other breach or for relief maintained any having jurisdiction parties in United States district court party or sought If the defendant whom to be com- parties. action is organization, be is a labor such action filed menced maintained any district court of district wherein United officer States organization resides or be found.” R. 79th such labor H. (1946). Cong., 2d Sess. explained “parties” whom a
Representative Case “suit employer recog- limited damages” lie were to the to “the would agent Cong. bargaining rather than an individual.” nized Rec. encompassed purposes House version and 10 of the which, addition, to dis explicitly permitted charge an employee who strike which was participated in a not authorized Taft, pro principal union.8 Senator ponent the provision, explained:
“If the union bargaining-agree- violates its collective it ment, is responsible, no member re- but individual sponsible, and he can of his way deprived rights. in no But if the union tries to keep in viola- its contract and, tion of its proceed members some undertaking, then strike, the employer may fire those members and they do not have protection Wagner Act.” Cong. Rec. 5705-5706 (1946). Thus Senator stopped of proposing short 8Senate Amendment to H. passed Senate, R. stated pertinent part: “(a) Suits for violation of a contract concluded as the result of collective bargaining between an employer and organization a labor if such con- *8 tract affects commerce as defined in brought this any act be district court of the jurisdiction United having parties. States of the “(b) Any organization whose activities affect commerce as defined by this act shall be bound duly the acts of agents its acting authorized scope authority within the of their organization from the said labor and entity or be sued an sue as and in employees behalf of the whom it represents in the courts of the United Provided, States: money That judgment against organization such labor only shall be enforceable organization entity the as an assets, and shall not be against any enforceable individual member or his assets.
“(d) Any employee participates who in a stoppage strike other of or work in violation of existing an agreement, collective-bargaining if such stoppage strike is not approved ratified or organization the labor party agreement such having to rights bargaining exclusive for such employee, shall employee party lose his status of the to such purposes for the 8, 9, sections and 10 of the National Provided, Labor Relations Act: employee That such loss of for such status reemployed by employer.” Cong. shall cease if and when he is such . Rec. 5705 in unau- engaging held liable be employees strikes. thorized ver- Senate’s the consideration subsequent House’s Senate’s limita- of the understanding its clear reflected
sion explained Case Representative remedies. employers’ on tion House: the the floor amendment the Senate liable for not made are of a union members “Individual only out, but the judgment, might point I any money in violation strike If entity. union as an can penalty that only individual agreement, their employment right their employed is the forfeiture employer re- when which is cured under that contract (emphasis added).9 Id., them.” at 5930-5931 employs doing so, passed the Senate version. The House then protect employees Senate, clearly intended House, like the a strike in damages for breach of a suit for from the sanction whether or agreement, collective-bargaining strike. It is true in or participated authorized that his veto was sus- President vetoed this bill and similarity between the Nevertheless, the substantial tained. passed Congress bill as pertinent language of Case legislative history today of 301 as it makes § reads vitally understanding full significant of the Case bill (b). behind policy began work veto, on the Congress Six months after the ultimately legislation passed The bill which became 301.10 9 Representative Representative Halleck echoed Case: Speaker, provision] “Mr. there is substituted for that which has [the goes responsibility do with the individual who out on a wildcat *9 strike in of a and in violation of violation contract the wishes of his organization. saywe his All is that if he breaches contract as an individ- manner, employer ual in not have to his does take him back unless Id., he wants to. is matter with What at 5932. that[?]” House, Representative In the containing Case introduced a bill provision establishing jurisdiction federal-court actions for over breaches by federal House created a cause action for breach a collective-bargaining agreement.11 Report The Committee explained proceedings involving “actions and violations employers contracts between and organizations labor brought by be party.” either R. Rep. H. 80th Cong., Sess., (1947). 1st 45-46 Section (b) also con- express language tained precluding in- enforcement of collective-bargaining agreements. (a) (b) Subsections and were vir- tually counterparts passed identical to their in the previous bill Congress. Representative session of explained As Case the bill before the House Labor, provision Committee on Education and “there is no suing workers, for such, rendering any judgment against as or Hearings them.” before House Committee on Education and Labor on Amendments to the Act, Cong., National Labor Relations Sess., 80th 1st (1947). Instead, subject discharge. wildcat strikers would be to Ibid.
Representative testimony Case’s before the House Committee also instructive: “Mr. agree you deny I can rights the members the Landis. Wagner Act, say but there is one coal mine—we had an instance
Indiana where went strike, one coal mine out on a wildcat and the United organization it, did not they get Mineworkers like and to tried the men go work, they to back and go work, would not back to still go refused days. to work several back for you
“Who would sue in that case? “Mr. course, I Of would think the Case. Workers, United Mine an organization, pretty good have any would defense to suit dam- ages against they them, if ordered men back to work. you “It me, would seem had a if local that strike, went out they parties contract, were to a the local would be damages.” liable for Id., at 126. (a) Section 302 stated: “(a) Any proceeding involving action agree- a violation of an ment organization between represent- or other ative brought by party either district having jurisdiction court of the United States parties, without regard controversy, amount if such com- affects merce, jurisdiction or the court otherwise has of the cause.” H. R. Cong., (as 80th passed by 1st House) Sess. *10 412 against unions.12 entered addi- judgments
dividuals §to amendment 7 of the National an tion, bill included of collective providing Act “violations Relations Labor protected Act, not be would under the bargaining-agreements” (1947), 1st Sess. al- Cong., (a), thereby H. R. 80th discharge wildcat strikers.13 The House lowing employers however, which allowed an em- provision, included a bill also damages from employees. Sec- recover individual ployer to any action against engaging a person tion 12 created activity. concerted The bill defined “unlaw- unlawful in an alia, include, inter jurisdictional activities” ful concerted and certain sympathy strikes, picketing strikes, activities. rejected the Senate House’s Significantly, however, 12 of damages liability against individuals imposition activity, and concerted for unlawful Conference Committee counterpart Senate version.14 The adopted the Senate (b) stated: Section “(b) Any organization whose activities affect shall commerce entity agents, acts of or an sue be sued as be bound employees represents whom in the courts of and in behalf of it Any judgment money organization' in a labor United States. only against United district court of the States shall enforceable assets, entity against its not be enforce- shall organization as an supra. his member or assets.” H. R. able has Report committee revised stated “[t]he The Committee employees who writing express terms that strike into it in this section agree collective-bargaining activities in violation engage in similar Rep. H. R. Labor Act.” protection . . ments . forfeit Sess., Cong., 1st 80th had earlier Labor and Public Welfare Committee on Senate for breach of a collective- creating federal cause of action reported a bill part: pertinent It stated in agreement. bargaining the result contracts concluded (a) violation of Suits “Sec. organization employer and a labor bargaining between collective industry defined affecting commerce as in an representing the United States any district court of brought may be this Act *11 12 of the House bill Taft a floor §was Senator offered damages amendment to which § would have established a individuals who against action of types in certain engage activity secondary boycotts unlawful concerted such as and jurisdictional Cong. strikes. 93 crit- Rec. 4900 exchange during ical the proposed amendment, debate on the Senator Taft altered the language damages to limit actions against unions, to claims in order conform (b) to with 301§ imposition and bar liability against employees:
“Mr. MORSE: proposal of from the Senator [T]he Ohio open would the wide doors of the courts Federal to damage against any suits in person engaged who strike or attempted other persuade to en- gage in objectives. a strike for one of the prohibited
“The proposal very definitely back at would take us least 40 years and we the again spectacle would have against employees, mass suits similar to the infamous Danbury Hatters case. Senators will recall that in that case some of the union members were sued their the Supreme and Court of the United States judgment sustained a against them in neighborhood quarter million . dollars. . . “It also should be pointed pro- out that the substitute posal is provision inconsistent with the present bill allowing a union to be sued breach contract. Section 301 of the permits bill against suits orga- labor jurisdiction having parties, respect without amount in con- troversy or regard without citizenship parties. “(b) Any organization represents labor which employees in an indus- try affecting commerce as defined this Act sue or be sued in its common name in the courts of the Provided, United States: That money judgment against organization such labor shall be enforceable only against organization entity assets, as an and shall against any not be enforceable individual member or his assets.” H. R. 3020, supra. allows proposal the substitute whereas only,
nizations section ‘any person.’ Also, damage suits The substi- union. recovery assets limits accounts bank employees’ the attachment tute allows property.. their all from by . . request . Senator [Ives] On TAFT: “Mr. I am amend point, who raised others York and New ‘person,’ word out striking proposal, ing or ‘labor lieu thereof line, inserting the second only against open will the action so ganization,’ *12 Id., strike.” type this promoting organizations 4839-4841.15 in- foreclosing bill, this version of the passed
The Senate in lawsuits. damages liability § § both 301 and 303 dividual rejected squarely conference, the Conference Committee At bill, in the Senate § House bill favor of 303 of 12 of § the individ damages to create a action thereby refusing prohibited for the in section. conduct employees ual House deleted addition, provision Committee the the protection removed 7 National had under of the § bill which activity Act for in of a concerted breach Labor Relations agreement for the reason collective-bargaining stated unnecessary light in recent was decisions provision provisions Labor Relations Board. Those had the National con bargaining in violation of collective held that “strikes protected concerted activities act and by tracts were discharged for employees refused reinstate NLRB [the had] Rep. R. 80th engaging such activities.” H. Conf. in debate, proponents During the of the Committee empha floor bill damages remedy proposed of the legisla sized the nature in limited give tion. For Ball stated: example, employers Senator “[W]e right commerce, court, to- a union in interstate sue Federal for beyond go Cong. It violation of contract. does not that.” 93 Rec. 5014 (1947) added). (emphasis Sess., 1st
Cong., therefore, opted Committee, individuals, discharge remedy for a violations of 303 by remedy for the damages proposed rather than that had been At by time, preferred discharge House. the same it as remedy employer’s employees under violate where no-strike their provision collective-bargaining agreement.16
Thus, (b) only while explicitly § 301 addresses union- of a authorized violations collective-bargaining agreement, Mills, “penumbra” (b), of § 301 Textile Workers v. Lincoln by U. S., legislative history, informed estab- Congress lishes that meant to exclude individual strikers from liability, by whether or were they authorized legislative their to strike.17 The proc- debates and the of legislative ess demonstrate Congress amendment de- liberately chose damages remedy to allow a breach of
16“Many of the matters covered section of the House bill are form, also covered in the conference in different as has been pointed (b) (1) out above in the discussion section section agreement. existing developed the conference principles Under of law recently applied Board, the courts and engage who violence, picketing, violations, mass practices, unfair labor contract improper conduct, employer other or who force the to violate the law, any immunity do not subject have under the act and dis are charge right right without reinstatement. The *13 discharge employee any an protected such is specific reason in (c). Furthermore, (k) terms 10 section under section 10 of the con agreement, given authority ference the Board is to apply to the district temporary injunctions restraining alleged courts for prac unfair labor temporarily pending the tices decision of the Board on merits.” Rep. 510, Cong., Sess., R. 80th (1947). H. Conf. 1st 59 17 on the Petitioners’ reliance statement in Hines Anchor Motor v. Freight, Inc., 554, (1976) 424 (emphasis added), U. S. 562 that “Section by contemplates against employees” suits and 301 individual is mis question placed. decide a We much narrower not before the damages contemplate recovery 301 not Hines: does from in result provision dividual as a of a breach no-strike collective-bargaining agreement. contemplated injunc- Whether Hines against suits tive individuals was decided the Court in Hines we have no to decide 18, and occasion issue now. n. See infra. 416 only collective-bargaining of a provision
no-strike individuals, and, unions, only as to unions, when against strike. See Carbon in or authorized they participated Workers, Mine 212, (1979). 444 U. S. Con- Fuel Co. v. 216 competing advantages disadvan- and gress itself balanced remedies wildcat possible to combat inherent tages Atkin- strongly guided by” are choice.18 strikes, and “we 18 damages remedy argue against that a Petitioners em individual indispensable preserve ployees integrity is of the collective- thereby bargaining agreement and to further policy the national labor promoting peace. proposition questionable industrial This is on its array potential terms, overlooks an own remedies that are available damages employer apart remedy to the from a against individuals, and rejected by Congress. was event It no certain that an remedy is means damages will meaningfully resulting increase deterrence of wildcat strikes above that just use of available remedies. likely from other It actions individuals would exacerbate industrial strife: “an action damages prosecuted during only or after a dispute tend would aggravate delay early industrial an strife the dif- resolution of Boys employer between ficulties Markets, union.” Inc. v. Retail Clerks, (footnote S., omitted); Gateway U. 398 at 248 see Coal Co. v. Workers, 381, Mine 368, U. S. n. significant array employers other remedies available to collective-bargaining agreements
achieve adherence to casts further doubt petitioners’ proposition. First, employer may an damages against seek responsibility the union where be traced to the union for the (b); contract breach. See U. S. C. Carbon Fuel Co. v. Mine Workers, 212, (1979); Refining U. Co., S. 216-218 Atkinson v. Sinclair S., 370 U. at Second, 247-249. an discharge, or otherwise discipline, employee unlawfully job. id., 246; an who walks off the See Rockaway Supply Co., NLRB v. 71, News (1953); Lakeshore Freight Motor v. Teamsters, Co. International Brotherhood 483 F. Supp. (WD 1980) (wildcat 2n. discharged, Pa. strikers employees). those allowed to return were rehired as new Third, the union may discipline itself its members. Workers, See Carbon Fuel Co. v. Mine 220; Corp. supra, Oil, Sinclair Oil Chemical Workers, & Atomic (CA7 1971); Cong. (1946) F. 2d (Sen. see 92 Rec. 5706 Capehart) (debate bill). Finally, on Case employer may injunctive seek relief provision unions for of a breach no-strike collective-bargaining in a *14 S., son v. Sinclair at 249. See Howard Refining Co., Johnson Co. v. Employees, Hotel U. at & Restaurant S., (a) we does sanction Accordingly, hold that against violating actions provision the no-strike collective-bargaining agree ment, whether or not in or authorized participated their union the strike.
Affirmed. Justice Powell, concurring concurring in the part judgment. opinion
The Court’s in enacting makes that Congress, clear Taft-Hartley amendments Labor to National Rela- tions did not Act, intend individuals liable in dam- hold ages for I wildcat strikes. join therefore Court’s judg- ment most of its I opinion. however, do share not, Court’s view that there management “significant remains to array of ante, other remedies,” at n. with which or obtain compensation deter illegal fact, strikes. “remedies” said be largely available are chimerical.
I Collective-bargaining agreements typically contain a prom- ise union not to strike during agreement’s term. agree to these Unions no-strike exchange clauses in for the promise employer’s to arbitrate disputes arising contract underlying dispute where the giving rise to the breach is Forge subject binding Steelworkers, Co. See arbitration. v. Buffalo 407; Gateway S., Workers, Boys supra, Coal Co. Mine 380-387; U. Markets, supra. Boys Inc. v. Retail Clerks, Whether Markets-Buffalo Forge injunction could have issued individual union en- members gaged in the wildcat strike at issue here is not It before us. injunction would not participating issue authorizing in circumstances otherwise the same: Judge instant case the District found that the strike commenced over dispute, a nonarbitrable ruling was disturbed Appeals. Court of *15 418 Mills, S. v. Lincoln 353 U. Textile Workers
administration. “quid quo” is (1957). promise pro Each the 449, 455 448, Co., other, Mfg. v. American 363 U. S. for the Steelworkers employer yields traditional man- (1960), because the 564, 567 exchange autonomy peace. for industrial agerial no-strike/grievance- the benefits of the' Despite mutual in breach of contract occur with dis- strikes pact, arbitration In some strikes are encour- frequency. cases, these turbing by however, aged instigated Often, or even union leaders.1 spontaneously they are true “wildcats” —strikes that arise occasionally, protest grievances against company and, leadership Responsible the union itself. unions dis- strikes, officials, especially of such some those at approve but level, may acquiesce the local in them because of the fervor members. intransigent cause, frequently strikes in of contract Whatever breach injure employer,2 concerned: employees, pub- all squander lic. Strikes and lockouts hu- their nature working capacity, man the full use is of which essential to enjoyment productive potential. of the Nation’s To be that, sure, policy recognizes the national labor cir- some use of cumstances, weapons of strike and con- lockout is 1 explicit encouragement Strike but cryptic. sometimes more often is may employ convey A signals message subtle One strike. employ court noted that sometimes “a nod unions or a wink aor ” United place UMW, States v. code ... of the word ‘strike.’ 77 F. (DC Supp. 563, 1948), aff’d, App. 566 29, 85 U. S. D. C. 2dF. denied, (1949). cert. U. S. disruptions Production have consequences. obvious short-term adverse pointed And one long-term commentator has out that consequences of these strikes be even severe. A strike “closely more rends the inte grated supply systems” company and distribution developed. has Jay Whitman, M. Narrowing Wildcat Strikes: The Unions’ Path to Recti tude?, (1975). systems Ind. L. J. Such “presume predicta bility. reputation A business with a problems, labor let alone wild cats, simply ibid., provide cannot its customers with predictability,” leading once-regular customers to seek other supply. sources of with law. protected Labor, management,
sistent public goal share a “common uninter nevertheless Navigation rupted production.” Steelworkers v. Warrior & Gulf ., The essential tenet Co system our self-govern labor “a policy is that of industrial (albeit vigorously negotiated) ment” based on consensual Co., supra, contracts, Mfg. see Steelworkers American *16 at “strikes, is J., preferable (Brennan, concurring), Markets, lockouts, self-help,” Boys or Inc. other v. Retail Clerks, 235, 398 U. S. Taft-Hartley
When the amendments were enacted in experienced Nation had wave of labor unrest.3 Con- gress of power collective-bargain- found that “the balance ing” had destroyed employers, prom- been because who had exchange ised to disputes arbitrate promises, no-strike often they the industrial peace failed obtain for which bargained. S. Rep. 14.4
II It is the 1947 increasingly Taft-Hartley clear that amend- remedy ments did provide employers with an effective today wildcat holds, strikes. The Court properly think, I that Congress foreclose intended remedy strikers. The Court wildcat states, however, accompanying Report Taft-Hartley Senate amendments experienced observed that in 1945 Nation “the loss approximately 38,000,000 man-days through of labor strikes. This total was trebled in 116,000,000man-days when there were lost. .” Rep. . . S. 80th Cong., (1947) (hereinafter Sess., Rep.). 1st Report The Senate stated that if workers agreements “can break with agreements impunity, relative then such do not tend to stabilize industrial agreement relations. The of such an promote execution does not itself advantage peace. industrial which employer reasonably The chief can expect from a collective labor uninterrupted assurance of operation agreement. during the term Without some effective assuring freedom from economic method warfare for the term the why an agreement, employer reason there is little sign would desire to such Id., at contract.” to deter legal weapons with which number of remains a there when compensation strikes, or to obtain illegal or terminate view, Ante, support In 416-417, n. 18. occur. they obtain an in- may (i) contends that the Court the union (iii) request strikers, junction, (ii) discharge disciplinary powers, (iv) sue to use its internal not, often than reality, more entity for Ibid. damages. illusory. of these remedies is each generally prohibited
Injunctions disputes in labor are Markets, Retail Boys Inc. v. Act.5 In Norris-LaGuardia exception to Clerks, recognized a limited supra, the Court Boys per- Markets provisions of that Act. anti-injunction if arbitration injunctions pending to terminate strikes mits However, is arbitrable. underlying the strike grievance be- Boys only relief, S., offers “narrow” Markets in strikes of other kinds. injunctions cause cannot be obtained Steelworkers, g., (1976) S. 397 Forge E. Co. v. U. Buffalo Moreover, strikes). (injunctions sympathy not available *17 available, is workers on strike often injunction even when an obey to im- are disinclined to it.6 Courts be reluctant ordered, pose contempt penalties workers; on individual if such difficult to enforce. penalties are discharge remedy in most Because
Nor is a realistic cases. in under unprotected strike breach contract is conduct Act, Mfg. the National Labor NLRB Relations see v. Sands Co., (1939), illegally 306 S. 332 U. workers who strike argued discharge terminated. It therefore has been
5 104, 4 Act, 70, Section of the Norris-LaGuardia 47 Stat. 29 U. S. C. § provides, pertinent part: jurisdiction any
“No court of the United States shall have re- to issue straining temporary permanent injunction any order or or case involv- any ing growing dispute out of . . . .” 6 Compare Corp. 1487, UMW, Old Ben Coal Local 162 v. 457 F. 2d (CA7 Corp. 1972), 1487, UMW, 950, Ben with Old Coal v. Local 2d 500 F. (CA7 1974). Injunctions Gould, 952 On Labor Pending See Arbitration: Forge, Recasting 533, (1978). 541, 30 Stan. L. Rev. and n. 47 Buffalo
421 effectively punishes wrongdoers deters strikes and because discharge equivalent capital punish “the industrial Jay ment.” M. Whitman, Wildcat Strikes: The Union’s Narrowing Rectitude?, 472, (1975). Path to 50 Ind. L. J. There three remedy practice are least reasons this why large often is not First, strike, effective. in a wildcat whole discharges practical sale are because an cannot all terminate or most his labor force without crippling Markets, production. Boys n. 17.7 supra, 248-249, See Second, certain kinds of selective discharges arguably are illegal. The posi National Labor Relations takes the Board employer may tion discipline a union officer more severely than other strike participants, even where officer failed to fulfill undertaking help a contractual ter only minate strikes.8 selected event, discharging unlikely strikers is to influence the rank file to return discharges to work. Such actually may aggravate worker dis thereby content and prolong the strike. Cedar Coal Co. United Mine 2d Workers, 1153, (CA4 1977), F. cert. denied, ; U. S. 1047 L. (1978) see 86 Harv. Rev. 7Discharging the entire work force per would mountainous “caus[e] problems. logistics hiring, training sonnel Consider sheer ac entirely climating an work new force skills. with suitable Even if recruited, new labor force process, could be expense time and of this production, very from recruitment to full could well sound the death knell Brown, Responsibility business.” Fishman & Union for Wildcat Strikes, Wayne (1975). L. Rev. g., Brewing Co.,
8 E. Miller (1981); B. 266 N. L. R. South Central Telephone Co., Casting Co., Bell (1981); N. L. R. B. 315 Precision 233 N. L. R. B. 183 position The Board’s is so clear that em ployers may conducting discharges. be deterred from selective This Court question, has not addressed the *18 Appeals but some Courts of have not warmly reasoning. received the Board’s Gould, NLRB, 612 See Inc. v. (CA3) (denying 2d (1978)), F. 728 enforcement to 237 N. L. R. B. 881 sub (1980); cert. denied nom. Moran Corp., v. Gould U. 449 S. 890 (CA7 Indiana Mich. NLRB, 1979) (deny & Electric Co. v. 2d 227 599 F. ing enforcement to 237 N. L. R. B. (1978)); 226 see NLRB also Armour-Dial, Inc., 51, (CA8 181). 638 F. 2d 54-56 422 may insist that minimum, strikers their At a (1972).
n. 33 returning a to reinstated as condition colleagues be discharged for Wild- Brown, Responsibility Fishman Union to & work. (1975). Third, Wayne 1017, L. Rev. Strikes, cat discharges of to refuse sustain infrequently arbitrators Pen- Handsaker, Remedies and & strikers. See Handsaker Federal How Strikes: Arbitrators alties for Wildcat L. 279, U. Ruled, Courts Have Cath. Rev. striking normally itself will not its discipline
The union such to legal authority Most unions have the take members. Legal Discipline, Summers, Limitations action, see on Union seldom power L. Rev. (1951), Harv. but In a worker sometimes strike, is used. wildcat recalcitrance much as incumbent union leadership at the is directed the union’s management. circumstances, these company may discipline unlikely attempt to to be effective counterproductive. Moreover, decision in under this Court’s Workers, (1979), Co. v. Mine Fuel Carbon parent normally obligated union is not affirmative to take prevent to Absent such steps terminate wildcat strike. there to obligation, is little union inter- incentive for the where vene, intervention would be even useful. for
Finally, damages entity a suit rarely union Last Term, Fuel, is feasible.9 Carbon we supra, largely employers Sophisticated may tactical elect to forgo reasons out, poststrike damages. tenable suits points As the such suits strife,” ante, thereby industrial delay “exacerbate n. acrimony dissipation engendered by Employers the strike. also damages they subject elect not to sue for because want do not litigation. themselves to the disclosure attendant suit A “necessarily employer’s involves detailed discussion of an most intimate By making damage claim, puts financial secrets. its . . . litigation. Federal finances ... at issue discovery rules of Procedure Rules Civil give right the union and its accountants every employer’s explore corner the- conducts books. If the properly, everything per-unit it will know profit ease from finer *19 possibility liability when nor- foreclosed this we held that mally may imposed proof not be union10 absent parent a it that It authorized or ratified the strike.11 is a foolish by explicitly union that a suit endors- damages would invite supra. ing a strike in this manner. See n.
Ill The plainly suggests is when unrealistic, therefore, it employers that their disposal battery have at a of alternative Ante, illegal remedies for strikes. at 416^417, n. 18. The re- sult of the of Despite absence remedies is a lawless vacuum. a clause, plant no-strike be closed with adverse conse- quences often far-reaching. are injures The strike employer, companies other and their employees, and con- sumers in general. strike harmful even Frequently, majority strikers, of who obligated feel to honor the picket minority line of wildcatters. is,
It of course, province Congress the Nation’s set I policy. do not suggest that authorizing damages remedy against individual wildcat strikers would be desira- I ble. do believe, however, of an absence effective of [corporate] management.” Jay details Whitman, supra M. at 474 n. (footnote omitted). Finally, part price settling promise the strike often is that the company will damages. waive its claim for Ransdell v. International Assn. Machinists, (ED 1978); Gould, LRRM Wis. On Labor Injunctions, Unions, Boys Judges: and the The Case, Market 1970 Ct. Rev. quantum Carbon necessary Fuel did not proof consider the damages liability establish against a local union. Because of the local’s proximity workers, agency liability— hence, an inference of —and arguably may proof explicit arise even without strike authorization Act, (e) (e). ratification. possi See 29 U. S. C. bility the local will be practical benefit, liable be of little how ever, because judgment-proof. the local often is recognized, course, Carbon Fuel explicit that an contractual under taking parent to intervene to terminate basis wildcats could be the liability. See 444 S.,U. at 218-222. interest remedy public and the leaves strikes undeterred such *20 as amended Act, The Labor Relations unprotected. National interests to further broader national in was intended It conceived labor or was management. those of either than only rights but also as a framework as a charter for labor strikes orderly labor relations. Wildcat promote of law to objectives. war with these are at Rehnquist with whom Justice
Chief Justice Burger, dissenting. joins, who, today
The holds breach a covenant approval union, of their without their collective-bargaining agreement in the between strike for employers may their not be held liable result- union and employers. to the At stake is the ing fundamental they principle individuals are accountable when breach voluntarily a executed contract. in The underlying dispute. facts this case are not in
respondents are members of Local 332 of the International Brotherhood of which as exclusive bar- Teamsters, their acts gaining agent petitioners, employers. with their The union petitioners collective-bargaining have entered into a n agreement provides part: Employers agree
“The Unions and no that there shall be strike, tie-up of equipment, slowdowns or walkouts on part employee . . . first using pos- without all sible means of settlement, provided Agreement, this any controversy might which App. arise.” 14-15. Despite respondents this embarked on what covenant, is commonly called a “wildcat” it strike; is admitted that the local union aid, “did not assist or authorize stoppage the work any tie-up Id., equipment.”
Section 301 of the (a) Management Labor Relations Act, 29 U. S. C. 185 (a), makes agreements collective-bargaining enforceable in federal courts both unions and em-
ployers. Cong., 80th 1st Sess., See H. Rep. R. No. 1st 15-16 Cong., Sess., S. (1947); Rep. 105, 80th members, Of of its course the on behalf union, acting sue and the employer agreement, for of the breaches more employer This is no may sue breaches. the union for its corollary contract under than a enforceability to the (a). problem no §301 had Moreover, the Court has past holding account- breach parties responsible employer able for their conduct. An sue the employee for breach the em- directly though even ployee is not Smith v. technically agreement, party Evening Assn., News but the (1962), U.
may not
union-sponsored
sue an
*21
individual worker
breach,
Co.,
Atkinson v.
(1962)
Sinclair
Refining
370 U. S.
(applying Labor Management
(b),
Relations Act
(b)).
U. S. C. § 185
Nor may the
employer sue
union
for members’
condoned,
breaches that
the union
Car-
has
bon Fuel
Workers,
Co. Mine
(1979).1
On the literally basis of centuries of the common law contracts, one would have thought that no- the traditional tions of accountability for voluntary one’s gov- would actions ern. Instead, Court holds workers, acting without union approval, are a privileged special, class who may with impunity violate an voluntarily reached in arm’s-length bargaining. This result finds no support in the statute, it significantly undermines the usefulness and 1 Thus, the union is not an “insurer” of compliance members’ with the collective-bargaining agreement, or vice versa. case, Had this been the I might join have willing been position, Court’s for the union .would remain for failing liable to see that members abided agreement. reliability of the collective-bargaining and it will not process, goals advance for it. claims reaching this conclusion, unusual the Court mistakenly on the (b) relies last sentence § the Labor Manage- Act, ment Relations which states:
“Any money judgment against
organization
a labor
district
court of the United States shall be enforceable
only against
organization
entity
as an
its assets,
and shall not
be enforceable
in-
dividual member or his assets.” 29
(b).
U.
C.
185§
face,
On its
this clause does no more than insulate union
members from personal
liability for union breaches of the
contract; Congress
provision
give
intended this
protection
members a
afforded
analogous
stockholders
corporations
against personal
liability for corporate acts.
S. Rep.
(1947) (“members
80th Cong.,
Sess.,
1st
of the union would secure all
advantages
limited liabil-
ity without
incorporation”).
acknowledged
It
that Con-
gress
provision
added this
prevent
Act to
to the
a recurrence
of the Danbury Hatters situation, see Lawlor v. Loewe, 235
S. 522
Lawlor,
U.
(1915); Loewe v.
members against individual liability for collective action; this simultaneously encourages group action through the union —which is what unions are all about —and prevents potentially large damages awards individual workers. But Congress changed when the law regarding individual lia-
bility conduct, changing for union it did not even at hint liability law for common-law rule contract individual individual which does no more than articulate conduct, accountability orga- to basic idea of individual essential an society.2 individual, or, nized an either personally When voluntarily here, through binding enters agent, into a agreement, is liable in individual breach. A provision language governs history in- whose whose —and dicates it was to designed govern only situations individ- — liability ual for collective action should not be construed wipe personal out principles core accountability in- dividual actions.
Curiously, ante, respond- n. and the Court, suggest ents will anomaly promote that this more harmonious relations employers striking by between workers prevent- ing long fight and drawn-out argument courts. This is wholly by it specious, and is contradicted Con- views gress expressed adopted Congress fully when it recog- nized that if breachable with “do agreements, impunity, tend to relations. stabilize industrial The execution of an by promote peace.” does not itself industrial S. Rep. Sess., 1st If Cong., 80th workers can “have it by their cake eat holding too” liable for its receiving immunity but own, breaches for their employers will likely mutually enter into less satis- factory collective-bargaining agreements place. in the first 2 The by Court cites various comments Congress regard Members of ing immunity they for union when approval. members act with union Those remarks do address issue before liability us—individual for individual conduct undertaken without union involvement. The near est the finding support question comes on that is a remark Taft, Senator during predecessor made subsequently debate bill President, employers vetoed fire “wildcat” strikers. Ante, directly 409. Even Senator Taft’s statement does not touch on liability action, and, for individual ironically, the Court’s use of it follows on the heels of the “sug Court’s own admonition avoid gestions] by negative implication.” Ante, at 407. *23 of assuring effective method freedom from some “Without the the for term of is little agreement, warfare there economic desire to such why employer sign would contract.” reason logic Ibid. from the Court’s would insulate unions Indeed, the union for had well: an action a strike it suit as similarly “reopen that since has ended tends but to sponsored difficulty seriously I Moreover, have entertain- wounds.” old employer responsible the is argument jeopard- ing an harmony seeking it injuries industrial izing by striking unlawfully it was the sustained when has place. in the first must peace who broke One themselves youth to delib- who, having recall temptation resist mercy pleads for the parents, both court’s erately murdered orphan. as an ante, accepts, believe —and respondents discharge by the 18—that threat
416, n. to by is sufficient ensure that collective- the union discipline generally by will be followed the union agreements bargaining measures, however, answer; These are members.3 no they come too after surely late, be too little they substantial losses business employer has suffered to its contract, never have that, under should due a strike In theory, employer might mitigate damages occurred. qualified but this hiring workers, substitute assumes work- employer’s The Court also mentions suit the union itself remedy responsible. Obviously, wholly is the union irrele when supra, this See vant case. at 425. separate opinion, analyzes Powell, thoroughly in his the in Justice adequacy impotence measures. The union’s is demonstrated these addition, place. its members in the first union its failure control may reject discipline hope appeasing in some instances officers bringing members and them back under union control. As Jus “wildcat” in NLRB Allis-Chalmers Brennan, writing for Man tice the Court Co., ufacturing (1967), aptly 388 U. S. noted: weak, depletion . the union is . faced with further “Where . except no real of its ranks have choice condone the member’s disobedience.” *24 willing even a to cross
ers could be found who would “wildcat” line. picket conduct for individual
Accountability individual each societies. organized lies at the core of all of all indeed, law— immunity modify sovereign The trend to eliminate or from “The away an development; unrelated we have moved King can do no of individual ac- wrong.” principle This organized countability is fundamental if structure society and it anarchy impotence, is not be eroded to justice. Today remains essential in as well as criminal civil the Court breaches penalizes for the “wildcat” employees. and rewards those errant me
It seems to American labor move- that, now, the ment nor sufficiently has matured so neither unions their excessively members need this kind artificial, paternalistic protection admittedly contrary illegal protection acts —a fundamental, concepts of centuries-old individual account- ability. stability harmony of unions indus- will relations be enhanced, applying trial impaired, to union members accountability the same standards govern other society.5 all individuals in ought
This Court not to make two classes of contract break- ers under collective-bargaining one one agreements, liable and I if union immune. submit members understand that they approval breach a contract without of their where liability will very likely we will see union, follow, authority for union will be en- strikes, fewer unauthorized greater harmony likely industrial will result. hanced 5 Cf. United States the chief Park, (1975), in which U. S. 658 criminally supermarket executive officer of a held liable chain was permitting insanitary notice of those food to be left in after conditions conditions.