Boys Markets, Inc. v. Retail Clerk's Union

Boys Markets, Inc. v. Retail Clerk's Union

Opinion

 [*237]   [***202]   [**1585]  MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN delivered the opinion of the Court.

In this case we re-examine the holding of Sinclair Refining Co. v. Atkinson, 370 U.S. 195 (1962), that the anti-injunction provisions of the Norris-LaGuardia Act ¹ [****7]  preclude a federal district court from enjoining a strike in breach of a no-strike obligation  [***203]  under a collective-bargaining  [*238]  agreement, even though that agreement contains provisions, enforceable under § 301 (a) of the Labor Management Relations Act, 1947, ² for binding arbitration of the grievance dispute concerning [****6]  which the strike was called. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, considering itself bound  [**1586]  by Sinclair, reversed the grant by the District Court for the Central District of California of petitioner's prayer for injunctive relief. 416 F.2d 368 (1969). We granted certiorari. 396 U.S. 1000 (1970). ] Having concluded that Sinclair was erroneously decided and that subsequent events have undermined its continuing validity, we overrule that decision and reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals.

In February 1969, at the time of the incidents that produced this litigation, petitioner and respondent were parties to a collective-bargaining agreement which provided, inter alia, that all controversies concerning its interpretation or application should be resolved by adjustment and arbitration procedures set forth therein ³ [****9]  and that, during the life of the contract, there should  [*239]  be "no cessation or stoppage of work, lock-out, picketing or boycotts. . . ." ⁴  [***204]  The dispute arose when petitioner's frozen foods supervisor [****8]  and certain members of his crew who were not members of the bargaining unit began to rearrange merchandise in the frozen food cases of one of petitioner's supermarkets. A union representative insisted that the food cases be stripped of all merchandise and be restocked by union personnel. When petitioner did not accede to the union's demand, a strike was called and the union began to picket petitioner's establishment. Thereupon petitioner demanded that the union cease the work stoppage and picketing and sought to invoke the grievance and arbitration procedures specified in the contract.

The following day, since the strike had not been terminated, petitioner filed a complaint in California  [*240]  Superior Court seeking a temporary restraining order, a preliminary and permanent injunction, and specific performance of the contractual arbitration provision. The state court issued a temporary restraining order forbidding continuation of the strike and also an order to show cause why a preliminary injunction should not be granted. Shortly thereafter, the union removed the case to the Federal District Court and there made a motion [****10]  to quash the state court's temporary restraining order. In opposition, petitioner moved for an order compelling arbitration and enjoining continuation of the strike. Concluding that the dispute was subject to arbitration under the collective-bargaining  [**1587]  agreement and that the strike was in violation of the contract, the District Court ordered the parties to arbitrate the underlying dispute and simultaneously enjoined the strike, all picketing in the vicinity of petitioner's supermarket, and any attempts by the union to induce the employees to strike or to refuse to perform their services.

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.