*1 UNITED STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA v.
ENTERPRISE WHEEL CORP. CAR& Argued April 28, No. 20, 538. 1960. Decided June *2 the cause argued E. Feller and David Elliot Bredhoff Arthur J. the brief were them on petitioner. With Layne. Carney M. P. Clowes and Goldberg, James respondent. Beatty the cause for argued C. William Huddleston. him was Jackson N. on the brief With Douglas, Justice Opinion of the Court by Mr. by Mr. Justice Brennan. announced period respondent during Petitioner union which agreement bargaining relevant here a collective meaning “as to the any differences provided agreement should be submitted application” of “shall be and that arbitrator’s decision arbitration parties.” provisions were binding Special final and on the discharge concerning suspension included agreement The stated: employees. Company or
“Should be determined grievance with by an arbitrator accordance procedure employee suspended has been unjustly or violation Agreement, Company shall of this reinstate full, at employee pay compensation for the employee’s regular rate of time lost.” provided: also agreed . . It is understood and that neither civil or party legal proceedings will institute suits other against alleged any violation provisions of this instead dis- contract; labor all putes will be the manner in this settled outlined Adjustment Article of Grievances.” III — jobs A left group protest their against A employee. of one union official advised at return work. respondent them once to An official of rescinded, gave request permission them and then day they it. The job next were told did not have any thing more way “until was settled one or the *3 other.”
(cid:127) A grievance filed; respondent finally was and when to this brought specific refused suit was for arbitrate^ the of agree- enforcement of arbitration the ment. The District Court ordered arbitration. The discharge arbitrator found that of men not was justified, their he though conduct, said, improper. was In his view facts suspension warranted at most a of days the men for 10 each. After before the arbitration award bargaining the collective agreement expired. union, however, continued represent plant. to at workers The arbitrator rejected the contention that expiration of the agreement barred reinstatement the employees. He held that the provision quoted imposed above an on obligation employer. unconditional He awarded reinstatement minus pay, pay with back a 10-day sus- pension and such sums as these received from employment. other
Respondent refused with comply the award. Peti tioner the District moved Court for enforcement. The respondent District Court directed comply. 168 F. Supp. 308. The of Appeals, Court while that agreeing arbitra enforce an jurisdiction District Court had held bargaining agreement,1 a collective
tion award under to be specify the amounts the award to that the failure of award unen pay from the back rendered deducted agreed, be remedied defect, That could forceable. It went complete the arbitration. requiring parties to an for back subse that award hold, however, on bargain to the of termination of the collective quent date not be enforced. also held ing agreement could requirement reinstatement unenforceable because collec employees was likewise expired. 269 F. 327. bargaining agreement had tive granted We certiorari. 361 U. S. of an to review the merits arbitra-
The refusal courts proper approach award is the to arbitration under tion policy The federal bargaining agreements. collective be settling disputes by labor arbitration would under- say if had the final on the merits of the mined courts As Steelworkers America awards. we stated United Co., Navigation ante, p. 574, v. Warrior & decided Gulf day, arbitrators under these collective are in a indispensable agencies ments continuous collec- disputes sit to bargaining'process. They tive settle require plant disputes for their solution level— practices of a knowledge particular of the custom and fac- *4 as tory particular industry particular of a or reflected agreements.2
1 Corp., (C. See Textile Cone Mills F. 920 A. Workers v. 268 Cir.). 4th profes or “Persons unfamiliar with mills and factories —farmers sors, upon visiting example remark them that seem —often particularly if, is in the like another world. This true as steel indus strongly uniquely try, technology both tradition and have and molded newly ways The em men and act when at work. hired think hand,’ gradually ployee, ‘green is initiated into what amounts a strange society. he finds himself in a miniature There environment his unusual sounds and smells and often with that assaults senses with an interpret When arbitrator is commissioned to and apply the is bargaining agreement, bring collective he judgment his informed to bear a fair order reach problem. of a This especially solution is true when it comes to remedies. formulating There the need is for flex- a ibility variety wide of The meeting situations. drafts- men may thought specific never have remedy what should be awarded meet particular contingency. a Nevertheless, an is interpretation arbitrator confined to and application bargaining agreement; collective dispense he sit to does not own brand of his industrial justice. may He guidance many course look for from sources, yet only his is legitimate long award so as it draws agreement. its essence from the collective bargaining infidelity When arbitrator's words' manifest an to this obligation, courts have no choice but to refuse enforce- ment of the award. opinion arbitrator as it case, bears
upon the pay beyond award of back date of the expiration ment's reinstatement, is ambiguous. may solely upon be read based the arbitrator's view of requirements enacted legislation, which would mean scope he exceeded the may submission. Or it heat, cold, different ‘weather conditions’ such as sudden drafts of or humidity. society only gradually He discovers that the he of which part government becomes a has of course a formal of its own—the management rules which union have laid down—but that it parallels also differs or classes, from the world outside in social folk- lore, ritual, and traditions. process very
“Under the in the a society’ old mills real ‘miniature grown up, in important ways technological revolution history society in this described case shattered it. But a new or work community immediately, though born long developed was time slowly. society strongly by As the old was molded discontinuous process making pipe, by so was the new one molded continuous process strongly high- influenced characteristics of new speed equipment.” Walker, automatic Factory, Life in the Automatic Ill, Bus. Rev. 36 Harv.
598 the agreement a construction of embodying be read looking to “the law” with the arbitrator itself, perhaps A help determining agreement. of the the sense award, an opinion accompanying ambiguity mere may have that the arbitrator permits the inference which refusing a to authority, is not reason exceeded his to obligation Arbitrators have no enforce award. reqhire an To give their reasons for award. court to may play lead arbitrators opinions3 ambiguity free of would opinions. This by writing supporting it safe no opinion en- for well-reasoned tends be undesirable aids integrity process in the gender confidence agreement. Moreover, we see clarifying underlying has no assume that this arbitrator abused reason to stayed him parties confided in and has not trust It is the areas marked out for his consideration. within apparent beyond that he went the submission. not refusing the rein- opinion to enforce Appeals’ Court of partial pay portions back of the award statement and any finding that the arbitrator did upon was not based his not his award on construction contract. premise merely disagreed with the arbitrator’s construction of it. pro- could have bargaining agreement
The collective wrongfully dis- any if were vided that remedy and back charged, the would be reinstatement Respond- up date were returned to work. major argument applying seems to be that cor- ent’s interpretation of law to the of the collective principles rect it can be bargaining agreement determined the arbitrator’s provide, ment not so therefore did accept- the contract. The upon decision was not based require courts, of this view would even under ance every review the clause, standard arbitration merits Jalet, Attitude, Judicial Review of Arbitration: The Judicial See Q. 519, L. Cornell *6 plenary by of the This review construction contract. meaningless provisions court of the merits would make reality for in final, that arbitrator’s decision is would almost never be underlines the final. This fundamental in error which we have United Steelworkers alluded Co., ante, Manufacturing America v. American p. 564, of day. ques- decided this we there emphasized, As of interpretation bargaining agree- tion of the collective is a It question ment the arbitrator. is arbitrator’s for; construction which was so far as bargained arbitrator’s decision concerns construction of contract, overruling have no business him because courts interpretation of the contract is different from his. agree Appeals judgment with the Court of
We Court should be District modified so may definitely amounts due the be determined In respects judg- arbitration. all other we think the ment the District Court should be affirmed. Accord- ingly, judgment Appeals, we reverse the of the Court of except for that modification, remand case to the proceedings conformity District Court with this opinion. is so ordered.
Mr. Frankfurter Justice concurs the result. Mr. part Justice Black took no the consideration or decision of case. opinion Brennan, Mr. joined by Justice Mr.
[For ante, Justice Frankfurter and Mr. Justice see Harlan, p. 569.] Whittaker,
Mr. Justice dissenting. Claiming employer’s that the on January 18, 1957, of 11 employees provisions violated the of its col- bargaining lective contract with employer covering — period April beginning 5, 1956, ending April 4, under arbitration, obtained Sought union 1957—the these the issues whether contract, violation employees had been and awarded if reinstated should be ordered and, so, ment In their-wrongful discharge. from the time wages after the collective more than four months August 1957, agreement of the expired, issues, by these agreement had *7 a hear- arbitrator, a single submitted to and parties, were January April on On 3,1958. 10, held him ing was before the 11 finding made his that 1958, award, the arbitrator in of the employees had been violation pay back ordering and their reinstatement with ment days rates from a time 10 after their dis- regular charge employer’s the time reinstatement. Over the to the objection agreement that the collective and submis- empower nor the arbitra- sion under it did not authorize wages any period tor to or for after award reinstatement expiration (April 4, 1957), date of of the the contract Court ordered of the award. The District enforcement judgment by elimi- Appeals Court of modified nating requirement employer that reinstate the employees pay wages period expira- and for the them after in of the affirmed all agreement, tion collective 327, 269 F. respects, granted certiorari, other and we 361 U. S.929.
That under the propriety discharges, collec- agreement, tive was arbitrable under its agreement, expiration, that even after is not in issue. is as any power Nor there issue here to the of the arbi- to pay trator award reinstatement status back to discharged employees expiration to the date of agreement. too, collective It is that the col- conceded, by April lective terms on agreement expired 4, 1957, its was never extended or renewed. and.
The sole question here is whether the arbitrator powers exceeded the submission and his awarding expira- any period reinstatement back after agreements. tion of the collective Like the Court of I think he I Appeals, nothing did. find the collec- tive to agreement purports so authorize. Nor does point anything agreement pur- the Court ports Indeed, do so. the union does not contend that any there is such covenant in the all contract. Doubtless rights employees that accrued to the under the collective agreement during term, its and that were made arbitrable by its could be awarded to them the arbi- provisions, trator, though even period agreement had surely rights ended. But no employees accrued under the expired. after it had Save for the provisions of the agreement, collective the absence, here, any contrary of law or applicable rule covenant between employer employees, and the the employer legal right at will. agreement, however, protected collective them against specified discharge, reasons, during its con- *8 tinuation. But agreement expired, when that it did not rights continue to afford employees to the futuro —as though still governing. effective and After expired, employment 11 employees status of these was terminable at the will of employer, as the Court of Appeals F. quite properly 269 held, 2d, 331, see Industries, Meadows 222 F. v. Radio 349 347, (C. A. Atchison, 7th Cir.); Andrews, T. & S. F. R. Co. v. 211 F. 2d 264, (C. Hinds, 265 A. Cir.); 10th Warden v. 163 F. 201 (C. Cir.), A. 4th and the announced of these 11 employees then lawfully became effective.
Once the expired, rights contract no continued to accrue under it to employees. Thereafter had no con- tractual right employer to demand that continue to them; employ and a the arbitrator did not have fortiori power employer so; order the to do nor did the arbitra- tor have power to order employer to pay wages to which contract, the date of termination
them after discharges. date of their was also the effective affirming so Appeals, of the Court of judgment required reinstatement much of the award payment employment status thereafter, expiration of but not wages contract, until I would indubitably correct, me be seems to affirm it.