A dispute between petitioner longshoremen's union and
respondent, an employers' association, over the interpretation of a
"set-back," or postponement of hours of work, provision in a
collective bargaining agreement, was submitted to arbitration as
provided in the agreement. On June 11, 1965, the arbitrator ruled
that respondent's interpretation was correct. Respondent sought
orders from the District Court enforcing the arbitrator's award,
following work stoppages in July and September, 1965 by stevedores
who disputed the meaning of the set-back provision. The court
expressed no opinion on the union's contentions that the later
disputes were distinguishable from the one involved in the
arbitrator's award, but, on September 15, merely entered a decree
requiring that the award "be specifically enforced," and ordering
the union "to comply with and to abide by the said Award." Although
the union's counsel noted that the award contained only an abstract
proposition and no command capable of "enforcement," counsel's
request for clarification of the court's order was unavailing. When
further set-back disputes disrupted work in February, 1966, the
court issued a rule to show cause why the union and its officers
should not be held in contempt for violating the September 15
order. Without explaining precisely what acts violated the order,
the judge held the February strike "illegal . . . under the
circumstances," found the union in civil contempt, and fined the
union $100,000 per day. The Court of Appeals affirmed the original
decree and the contempt order.
Held: Since the District Court's decree, which was an
"order granting an injunction" within the meaning of Fed.Rule
Civ.Proc. 65(d), did not
Page 389 U. S. 65
comply with the Rule's requirement that it state in specific
terms the acts that it commands or prohibits, neither it nor the
decision holding the union in contempt can stand. Pp.
389 U. S.
74-76.
365 F.2d 295, 368 F.2d 932, reversed.
MR. JUSTICE STEWART delivered the opinion of the Court.
These cases arise from a series of strikes along the
Philadelphia waterfront. The petitioner union, representing the
longshoremen involved in those strikes, had entered into a
collective bargaining agreement in 1959 with the respondent, an
association of employers in the Port of Philadelphia. The agreement
included provisions for compensating longshoremen who are told
after they report for duty that they will not be needed until the
afternoon. [
Footnote 1] The
union construed those "set-back" provisions
Page 389 U. S. 66
to mean that, at least in some situations, longshoremen whose
employment was postponed because of unfavorable weather conditions
were entitled to four hours' pay; the association interpreted the
provisions to guarantee no more than one hour's pay under such
circumstances.
In April, 1965, when this disagreement first became apparent,
the parties followed the grievance procedure established by their
collective bargaining contract and submitted the matter to an
arbitrator for binding settlement. [
Footnote 2] On June 11, the arbitrator ruled that the
Page 389 U. S. 67
association's reading of the set-back provisions was correct.
[
Footnote 3] In July, however,
a group of union members refused to unload a ship unless their
employer would promise four hours' pay for having set back their
starting
Page 389 U. S. 68
time from 8 a.m. to 1 p.m. The union sought to arbitrate the
matter, but the association viewed the original arbitrator's
decision as controlling and instituted proceedings in the District
Court to enforce it. The complaint alleged that the union had
refused
"to abide by the terms of the Arbitrator's Award . . . resulting
in serious loss and damage to [the] Employer . . . and to the Port
of Philadelphia."
This refusal, the complaint charged, constituted "a breach of
the applicable provisions of the current Collective Bargaining
Agreement between the P.M.T.A. and the Union." The complaint
concluded with a prayer
"that the Court set an immediate hearing and enter an order
enforcing the Arbitrator's Award, and that plaintiff may have such
other and further relief as may be justified."
Before the court could take any action, the employer had met the
union's demands and the men had returned to work. The District
Court heard evidence in order to "put the facts on record" but
concluded that the case was "moot at the moment" and decided simply
to "keep the matter in hand as a judge [and] take jurisdiction . .
. [i]f anything arises." A similar situation did, in fact, arise --
this time in September. Again, before the District Court could act,
the work stoppage ended. The association nonetheless requested
"an order . . . to make it perfectly clear to the [union] that
it is required to comply with the Arbitrator's award because we
cannot operate in this port if we are going to be continually
harassed by the Union in taking the position that they are not
going to abide by an Arbitrator's award. . . ."
Counsel for the union rejected that characterization of its
position. He submitted that the set-back disputes of July and
September were distinguishable from the one which occurred in
April, and that the arbitrator's decision
Page 389 U. S. 69
of June 11, 1965, resolving the April controversy, was not
controlling. [
Footnote 4] The
District Court expressed no opinion on any of these contentions,
but simply entered a decree, dated September 15, 1965, requiring
that the arbitrator's award "issued on June 11, 1965, be
specifically enforced." The decree ordered the union "to comply
with and to abide by the said Award." It contained no other
command. [
Footnote 5]
Page 389 U. S. 70
When the District Court first indicated that it would issue such
a decree, counsel for the union asked the court for
clarification:
"Mr. Freedman: Well, what does it mean, Your Honor?"
"The Court: That you will have to determine, what it means."
"Mr. Freedman: Well, I am asking. I have to give my client
advice, and I don't know what it means. I am asking Your Honor to
tell me what it means. It doesn't -- "
"The Court: You handled the case. You know about it. . . ."
"Mr. Freedman: I am telling you very frankly now I don't know
what this order means, this proposed order. It says, 'Enforcement
of the award.' Now, just what does it mean? . . . The arbitration .
. . involved an interpretation of the contract under a specific set
of facts. . . . Now, how do you enforce it? That case is over and
done with. These are new cases. Your Honor is changing the contract
of the parties when you foreclose them from going to arbitration on
this point again."
"The Court: The Court has acted. This is the order."
"Mr. Freedman: Well, won't Your Honor tell me what it
means?"
"The Court: You read the English language and I do."
Although the association had expressly told the District Court
that it was "not seeking to enjoin work stoppages,"
Page 389 U. S. 71
counsel for the union asked whether the decree might nonetheless
have that effect:
"Mr. Freedman: . . . Does this mean that the union cannot engage
in a strike or refuse to work or picket?"
"The Court: You know what the arbitration was about. You know
the result of the arbitration."
"
* * * *"
"I have signed the order. Anything else to come before us?"
"Mr. Freedman: I know, but Your Honor is leaving me in the sky.
I don't know what to say to my client."
"Mr. Scanlan: No, I have nothing further, Your Honor."
"The Court: The hearing is closed."
Thus, despite counsel's repeated requests, the District Judge
steadfastly refused to explain the meaning of the order.
When further set-back disputes disrupted work throughout the
Port of Philadelphia in late February, 1966, the District Court
issued a rule to show cause why the union and its officers should
not be held in contempt for violating the order of September 15.
Throughout the contempt hearing held on March 1, 1966, counsel for
the union sought without success to determine precisely what acts
by the union, its officers, or its members were alleged to have
violated the court's order. "We have a right to know," he said,
"what it is that we are being accused of. . . ." The District Judge
refused to comment. [
Footnote
6]
Page 389 U. S. 72
At some points in the proceedings, it appeared that the alleged
violation consisted of the work stoppage during the last few days
of February; but at other times, the inquiry focused upon the
union's request for a grievance meeting on February 28 to discuss
the latest set-back problem. "Why," counsel for the association
asked, did the union seek "to rearbitrate the award . . .?" As the
contempt hearing drew to a close, counsel for the association
suggested yet another possibility -- that union officials violated
the District Court's decree when they "castigated" the arbitrator's
award and failed to "tell [the men] that their work stoppage was
unauthorized" under the award entered some eight months earlier.
"[I]n failing to do that," counsel said,
"they have shown that they do not intend to abide by the
arbitrator's award which was the essence of the order which Your
Honor issued. . . ."
Invited to make a closing argument, counsel for the union
said:
"I really don't know what to address myself to, because I don't
know what it is we are being charged with. Are we being charged
because we want to arbitrate or because we asked to invoke the
provisions or are we being charged for something else? . . ."
"I may say to Your Honor that we have been shooting in the dark
here now, trying to guess at what may be an issue. . . ."
But the District Judge evidently felt no need for explanation.
After a short recess, the court announced that the dock strike was
"illegal . . . under the circumstances," and that the union had
"violated the order of this Court, and therefore shall be adjudged
in civil contempt."
Page 389 U. S. 73
After extending the contempt holding to "the officers and the
men who participated," the court fined the union $100,000 per day,
retroactive to 2 p.m., March 1, 1966, when the contempt hearing
began, and every day thereafter "as long as the order of this Court
is violated." The Court of Appeals affirmed both the original
decree of the District Court and its subsequent contempt order,
[
Footnote 7] and we granted
certiorari to consider the questions presented by these two
judgments. [
Footnote 8]
Much of the argument in the Court of Appeals and in this Court
has centered upon the District Court's power to issue the order of
September 15, 1965. [
Footnote
9] The union maintains that the order was an injunction against
work stoppages, and points out that, in
Sinclair Refining Co.
v. Atkinson, 370 U. S. 195, we
held that, because of the Norris-LaGuardia Act, a federal court
cannot enjoin a work stoppage even when the applicable collective
bargaining agreement contains a no-strike clause. The association,
on the other hand, argues that the order no more than enforced an
arbitrator's award, and points out that, in
Textile Workers
Union v. Lincoln Mills, 353 U. S. 448, we
held that, under § 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act, a
federal court may grant equitable relief to enforce an agreement to
arbitrate. The parties have strenuously argued the applicability of
Sinclair and
Lincoln Mills to the facts before
us. We do not, however, reach the underlying questions of federal
labor law these arguments present. For, whatever power the District
Court might have possessed under the circumstances disclosed by
this record, the conclusion is inescapable that the decree which
the court, in fact, entered was too vague
Page 389 U. S. 74
to be sustained as a valid exercise of federal judicial
authority.
On its face, the decree appears merely to enforce an
arbitrator's award. But that award contains only an abstract
conclusion of law, not an operative command capable of
"enforcement." When counsel for the union noted this difficulty and
sought to ascertain the District Court's meaning, he received no
response. Even at the contempt hearing on March 1, the union was
not told how it had failed to "comply with and . . . abide by the
[Arbitrator's] Award," in accordance with the District Court's
original order. That court did express the view on March 1 that the
February walkouts had been "illegal . . . under the circumstances."
But such strikes would have been "illegal" -- in the sense that
they would have been violative of the collective bargaining
agreement -- even if the District Court had entered no order at
all,
Teamsters Local v. Lucas Flour Co., 369 U. S.
95, and the record does not reveal what further
"circumstances" the court deemed relevant to the conclusion that
the union had violated its decree. Thus, the September 15 decree,
even when illuminated by subsequent events, left entirely unclear
what it demanded.
Rule 65(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure was designed
to prevent precisely the sort of confusion with which this District
Court clouded its command. That rule provides:
"Every order granting an injunction and every restraining order
shall set forth the reasons for its issuance; shall be specific in
terms; shall describe in reasonable detail, and not by reference to
the complaint or other document, the act or acts sought to be
restrained, and is binding only upon the parties to the action,
their officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys, and
upon those persons in
Page 389 U. S. 75
active concert or participation with them who receive actual
notice of the order by personal service or otherwise."
Whether or not the District Court's order was an "injunction"
within the meaning of the Norris-LaGuardia Act, it was an equitable
decree compelling obedience under the threat of contempt and was
therefore an "order granting an injunction" within the meaning of
Rule 65(d). Viewing the decree as "specifically enforcing" the
arbitrator's award would not alter this conclusion. We have
previously employed the term "mandatory injunction" to describe an
order compelling parties to abide by an agreement to arbitrate,
[
Footnote 10] and there is
no reason to suppose that Rule 65(d) employed the injunction
concept more narrowly. That rule is the successor of § 19 of the
Clayton Act. [
Footnote 11]
Section 19 was intended to be "of general application," to the end
that "[d]efendants . . . never be left to guess at what they are
forbidden to do. . . ." [
Footnote 12] Consistent with the spirit and purpose of
its statutory predecessor, we have applied Rule 65(d) in reviewing
a judgment enforcing an order of the National Labor Relations
Board, [
Footnote 13] and the
courts of appeals have applied the rule not only to prohibitory
injunctions but to enforcement orders and affirmative decrees as
well. [
Footnote 14] We have
no doubt, therefore, that the
Page 389 U. S. 76
District Court's decree, however it might be characterized for
other purposes, was an "order granting an injunction" for purposes
of Rule 65(d).
The order in this case clearly failed to comply with that rule,
for it did not state in "specific . . . terms" the acts that it
required or prohibited. The Court of Appeals viewed this error as
"minor and in no way decisional." [
Footnote 15] We consider it both serious and
decisive.
The judicial contempt power is a potent weapon. When it is
founded upon a decree too vague to be understood, it can be a
deadly one. Congress responded to that danger by requiring that a
federal court frame its orders so that those who must obey them
will know what the court intends to require and what it means to
forbid. Because the decree of this District Court was not so
framed, it cannot stand. And with it must fall the District Court's
decision holding the union in contempt. We do not deal here with a
violation of a court order by one who fully understands its meaning
but chooses to ignore its mandate. We deal instead with acts
alleged to violate a decree that can only be described as
unintelligible. The most fundamental postulates of our legal order
forbid the imposition of a penalty for disobeying a command that
defies comprehension.
Reversed.
* Together with No. 78,
International Longshoremen's
Association, Local 1291, et al. v. Philadelphia Marine Trade
Association, also on certiorari to the same court.
[
Footnote 1]
The 1959 agreement provided in Article 9(a) that "Men employed
from Monday to Sunday, inclusive, shall be guaranteed four (4)
hours' pay for the period between 8:00 A. M. and 12:00 Noon,
regardless of any condition." Article 9(h) provided that
"If a ship is knocked off on account of inclement weather by the
Ship's Master or his authorized representative, the men will be
paid the applicable guarantee, but in the event the men knock off
themselves, they will be paid only for the time worked, regardless
of guarantee provided for in this Agreement."
A Memorandum of Settlement, effective October 1, 1964, provided
in Article 10(5) that "[f]or work commencing at 8 AM on Monday or
at 8 AM on the day following a holiday," employers would "have the
right because of nonarrival of a vessel in port to cancel the gangs
by 7:30 A. M." Article 10(6) then stated:
"Gangs ordered for an 8 AM start Monday through Friday can be
set back at 7:30 AM on the day of work to commence at 1 PM at which
time a four hour guarantee shall apply. A one hour guarantee shall
apply for the morning period unless employed during the morning
period."
Article 16 of the Memorandum of Settlement adopted the
provisions of the 1959 agreement by reference, with the proviso
that, in cases of conflict, "the provisions of [the Memorandum]
shall prevail."
[
Footnote 2]
Article 28 of the 1959 agreement, unchanged by the Memorandum of
Settlement, provided:
"All disputes and grievances of any kind or nature whatsoever
arising under the terms and conditions of this agreement, and all
questions involving the interpretation of this agreement other than
any disputes or grievances arising under the terms and conditions
of paragraph 13(d) hereof, shall be referred to a Grievance
Committee, which shall consist of two members selected by the
Employers and two members selected by the Union. . . . Should the
Grievance Committee be unable to resolve the issue submitted and
should neither party request an immediate decision from the
Arbitrator, then the grievance or dispute shall be submitted to a
Joint Grievance Panel consisting of three representatives of the
Association and three representatives of the Union. To the end that
there shall be no work interruptions, and to the end that there
shall be limited necessity for arbitration, the Panel shall make
every effort to resolve all grievances or disputes which could not
be resolved by the Grievance Committee. . . . Should the Panel be
unable to resolve grievance or dispute which arose in the previous
two weeks, or be unable to resolve a grievance or dispute
anticipated in the ensuing two weeks, the dispute or grievance,
including matters of interpretation of the contract, shall be
referred to an Impartial Arbitrator who shall be selected to serve
for a period of one year from a panel of five arbitrators to be
submitted by the American Arbitration Association. . . . The
Arbitrator thus selected shall conduct his hearings and procedures
in accordance with the Rules of the American Arbitration
Association, except that he shall be obliged to render his decision
within forty-eight hours of the conclusion of his hearings or
procedures. . . . Should the terms and conditions of this agreement
fail to specifically provide for an issue in dispute, or should a
provision of this agreement be the subject of disputed
interpretation, the Arbitrator shall consider port practice in
resolving the issue before him. If the Arbitrator determines that
there is no port practice to assist him in determining an issue not
specifically provided for in the collective bargaining agreement,
or no port practice to assist him in resolving an interpretation of
the agreement, the issue shall become the subject of negotiation
between the parties. There shall be no strike and no lock-out
during the pendency of any dispute or issue while before the
Grievance Committee, the Joint Panel, or the Arbitrator."
[
Footnote 3]
The text of the arbitrator's award was this:
"The contention of the Employer, the Philadelphia Marine Trade
Association, is hereby sustained and it is the Arbitrator's
determination that Section 10(6) of the Memorandum of Settlement
dated February 11, 1965, providing gangs 'ordered for an 8 AM start
Monday through Friday can be set back at 7:30 AM on the day of work
to commence at 1 PM, at which time a 4 hour guarantee shall apply.
A 1 hour guarantee shall apply for the morning period unless
employed during the morning period,' may be invoked by the Employer
without qualification."
"The contention of the Union, the International Longshoremen's
Association, Local No. 1291, that Section 10(6) of the Memorandum
of Settlement dated February 11, 1965, referred to above, can only
be invoked by the Employer because of non-arrival of a vessel in
port, is denied."
[
Footnote 4]
The union's position in this regard was twofold. It maintained,
first, that, even if the July and September disputes had been
factually identical to that of April, it was
"quite clear . . . from past practice and from the agreement
itself that . . . the award as to [any given] dispute relates only
to that dispute and is not controlling so far as any future dispute
is concerned."
The union contended, second, that the disputes were factually
different in at least one crucial respect: in the later disputes,
the longshoremen were not notified of the set-back by 7:30 a.m., as
required by Article 10 of the Memorandum of Settlement. The
arbitrator's award, by its own terms, dealt only with situations in
which longshoremen were "set back at 7:30 a.m." Counsel for the
association seemingly agreed that the question of notice thus
presented an independently arbitrable issue. He said:
"[T]he factual issues as far as whether or not there was notice
. . . should be brought up under the grievance procedure which is
in the contract."
"The question of notification,' he agreed, 'was not a matter in
the arbitrator's award.' He stated that the time and method of
notification had not changed from April to September, but he
conceded that the problem 'was never brought to [the arbitrator's]
attention by the parties.' On this basis, counsel for the union
said that his adversary had 'admitted on the stand that this
situation goes beyond the arbitrator's award.' The District Judge
thought otherwise: 'You have added words to his mouth, my dear boy,
and that you can't do."
[
Footnote 5]
The full text of the decree was this:
"
ORDER -- September 15, 1965"
"And Now to Wit, This 15th day of September, 1965, after
hearing, it is hereby ordered, adjudged and decreed that the
Arbitrator's Award in the matter of arbitration between the
Philadelphia Marine Trade Association and International
Longshoremen's Association Local 1291, issued on June 11, 1965, be
specifically enforced by defendant, International Longshoremen's
Association Local 1291, and the said defendant is hereby ordered to
comply with and to abide by the said Award."
"By the Court."
Ralph C. Body, J.
[
Footnote 6]
At the hearing following the July work stoppage, the District
Judge had agreed that, as to factual situations going "beyond the
arbitrator's award, the union is not bound." The union thus
attempted to prove at the contempt hearing on March 1 that the
February disputes, like those of the previous July and September,
went beyond the arbitrator's award in that they raised a separate
question of notice.
Cf. n 4,
supra. The District Judge did not comment
upon this aspect of the case in holding the union guilty of
contempt.
[
Footnote 7]
365 F.2d 295, 368 F.2d 932.
[
Footnote 8]
386 U.S. 907,
386 U. S. 387
U.S. 916.
[
Footnote 9]
Other issues have been argued as well. In light of our
disposition of these cases, we do not reach them.
[
Footnote 10]
Textile Workers Union v. Lincoln Mills, 353 U.
S. 448 upheld federal judicial power to issue such an
enforcement order. In
Sinclair Refining Co. v. Atkinson,
370 U. S. 195, we
described "the equitable relief granted in"
Lincoln Mills
as "a mandatory injunction to carry out an agreement to arbitrate."
Id. at
370 U. S.
212.
[
Footnote 11]
38 Stat. 738, 28 U.S.C. § 383 (1940 ed.).
[
Footnote 12]
H.R.Rep. No. 627, 63d Cong., 2d Sess., 26 (1914); S.Rep. No.
698, 63d Cong., 2d Sess., 21 (1914).
[
Footnote 13]
Regal Knitwear Co. v. Board, 324 U. S.
9,
324 U. S.
13-15.
[
Footnote 14]
See, e.g., International Brotherhood v. Keystone F.
Lines, 123 F.2d 326, 330 (C.A. 10th Cir.);
NLRB v.
Birdsall-Stockdale Motor Co., 208 F.2d 234, 236-237 (C.A. 10th
Cir.);
English v. Cunningham, 106 U.S.App.D.C. 70, 77-78,
269 F.2d 517, 524-525.
Cf. Brumby Metals, Inc. v. Baryen,
275 F.2d 46, 48-50 (C.A. 7th Cir.);
Miami Beach Federal Savings
Loan Assn. v. Callander, 256 F.2d 410, 415 (C.A. 5th
Cir.).
[
Footnote 15]
365 F.2d 295, 301.
MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN, concurring in result.
I concur in the result. But, like my Brother DOUGLAS, I
emphasize that today's disposition in no way implies that
Sinclair Refining Co. v. Atkinson, 370 U.
S. 195,
Page 389 U. S. 77
determines the applicability of the Norris-LaGuardia Act to an
equitable decree carefully fashioned to enforce the award of an
arbitrator authorized by the parties to make final and binding
interpretations of the collective bargaining agreement.
MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, concurring in part and dissenting in
part.
I would reverse in No. 78 and, in No 34, remand the case to the
District Court for further proceedings.
If the order of the District Court is an "injunction" within the
meaning of Rule 65(d), then I fail to see why it is not an
"injunction" within the meaning of the Norris-LaGuardia Act. Legal
minds possess an inventive genius as great as that of those who
work in the physical sciences. Perhaps a form of words could be
worked out which would employ the science of semantics to
distinguish the Norris-LaGuardia Act problem from the present one.
I, for one, see no distinction, and since I feel strongly that
Sinclair Refining Co. v. Atkinson, 370 U.
S. 195, caused a severe dislocation in the federal
scheme of arbitration of labor disputes, I think we should not set
our feet on a path that may well lead to the eventual reaffirmation
of the principles of that case. My Brother STEWART expressly
reserves the question whether the present order is an injunction
prohibited by the Norris-LaGuardia Act. Despite this qualification,
once we have held that the order constitutes an "injunction," the
District Court, on remand, would likely consider
Sinclair,
which is not overruled, controlling, and apply it to preclude the
issuance of another order.
We held in
Textile Workers Union v. Lincoln Mills,
353 U. S. 448,
that a failure to arbitrate was not part and parcel of the abuses
against which the Norris-LaGuardia Act was aimed. We noted that
Congress, in fashioning § 301 of the Labor Management Relations
Act, was seeking
Page 389 U. S. 78
to encourage collective bargaining agreements in which the
parties agree to refrain from unilateral disruptive action, such as
a strike, with respect to disputes arbitrable by the agreement.
Hence, if unions could break such agreements with impunity, the
congressional purpose might well be frustrated. Although § 301 does
not in terms address itself to the question of remedies, it
commands the District Court to hold the parties to their
contractual scheme for arbitration -- the "favored process for
settlement," as my Brother BRENNAN said in dissent in
Sinclair, 370 U.S. at
370 U. S. 216.
I agree with his opinion that there must be an accommodation
between the Norris-LaGuardia Act and all the other legislation on
the books dealing with labor relations. We have had such an
accommodation in the case of railroad disputes.
See Brotherhood
of Railroad Trainmen v. Chico R. & I. R. Co., 353 U. S.
30. With respect to § 301,
"Accommodation requires only that the anti-injunction policy of
Norris-LaGuardia not intrude into areas, not vital to its ends,
where injunctive relief is vital to a purpose of § 301; it does not
require unconditional surrender."
370 U.S. at
370 U. S.
225.
It would be possible, of course, to distinguish
Sinclair from the instant cases. In these cases, the
relief sought was a mandate against repetition of strikes over
causes covered by the arbitrator's award. The complaint below
alleged that the union's
"refusal to comply with the terms of the Arbitrator's Award
constitutes a breach of the applicable provisions of the current
Collective Bargaining Agreement. . . ."
Respondent asked that the court "enter an order enforcing the
Arbitrator's Award, and that plaintiff may have such other and
further relief as may be justified." We do not review here, as in
Sinclair, a refusal to enter an order prohibiting
unilateral disruptive action on the part of a union before that
union has submitted its grievances to the arbitration procedure
Page 389 U. S. 79
provided by the collective bargaining agreement. Rather, the
union, in fact, submitted to the arbitration procedure established
by the collective bargaining agreement but, if the allegations are
believed, totally frustrated the process by refusing to abide by
the arbitrator's decision. Such a "heads I win, tails you lose,"
attitude plays fast and loose with the desire of Congress to
encourage the peaceful and orderly settlement of labor
disputes.
The union, of course, may have acted in good faith, for the new
dispute may have been factually different from the one which
precipitated the award. Whether or not it was, we do not know. To
make the accommodation which the
Textile Workers case
visualizes as necessary between the policy of encouraging
arbitration. on the one hand. and the Norris-LaGuardia
restrictions. on the other, the basic case must go back for further
and more precise findings and the contempt case must obviously be
reversed.
See Sinclair, 370 U.S. at
370 U. S.
228-229 (dissenting opinion).