GOODALL-SANFORD, INC.,
v.
UNITED TEXTILE WORKERS OF AMERICA, A. F. L. LOCAL 1802, ET AL.
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
A decree under § 301(a) of the Labor Management Relations Act ordering enforcement of an arbitration provision in a collective bargaining agreement is a final decision appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
A union sought specific performance to compel arbitration of employee layoffs under a collective bargaining agreement. The lower courts granted this r…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Grievance Arbitration cases and more on FLexlaw
Mr. Justice Douglas delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case, a companion case to No. 211, Textile Workers Union of America v. Lincoln Mills of Alabama, ante, p. 448, was brought by respondent-union in the District Court to compel specific performance of a grievance arbitration provision of a collective bargaining agreement between it and petitioner. The controversy arose over the layoff of employees incident to a curtailment of production and a liquidation of the plants in question. Petitioner terminated the employment of the men who were laid off. The respondent protested the termination of employment, claiming that the men should not have been discharged, thus preserving certain accrued rights to fringe benefits (such as insurance, pensions, and vacations) payable to laid-off employees.
The District Court granted specific performance. 131 F. Supp. 767. The Court of Appeals affirmed, 233 F. 2d 104, relying on its prior decision in General Electric Co. v. United Electrical Workers, ante, p. 547. For the reasons given in No. 211, Textile Workers Union of America v. Lincoln Mills of Alabama, ante, p. 448, we think the Court of Appeals was correct in affirming the District Court’s judgment ordering enforcement of the agreement to arbitrate.
There remains the question whether an order directing arbitration is appealable. This case is not comparable to Baltimore Contractors v. Bodinger, 348 U. S. 176, which held that a stay pending arbitration was not a “final decision” within the meaning of 28 U. S. C. § 1291. Nor need we consider cases like In re Pahlberg, 131 F. 2d 968, and Schoenamsgruber v. Hamburg Line, 294 U. S. 454, holding that an order directing arbitration under the United States Arbitration Act is not appealable. The right enforced here is one arising under § 301 (a) of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947. Arbitration is not merely a step in judicial enforcement of a claim nor auxiliary to a main proceeding, but the full relief sought. A decree under § 301 (a) ordering enforcement of an arbitration provision in a collective bargaining agreement is, therefore, a “final decision” within the meaning of 28 U. S. C. § 1291.
[For dissenting opinion of Mr. Justice Frankfurter, see ante, p. 460.]
Affirmed.
Mr. Justice Burton, whom Mr. Justice Harlan joins, concurs in the result in this case for the reasons set forth in his concurrence in No. 211, Textile Workers Union of America v. Lincoln Mills of Alabama, ante, p. 459.
Mr. Justice Black took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (49 total)
-
Gilmer v. Interstate/Johnson Lane Corp., 500 U.S. 20 (U.S. 1991)…ry clause to arbitration provisions in collective-bargaining agreements was one of the issues raised in the petition for certiorari and [*41] briefed at great length in Lincoln Mills and its companion cases, Goodall-Sanford, Inc. v. Textile Workers, 353 U. S. 550 (1957), and General Electric Co. v. Electrical Workers, 353 U. S. 547 (1957). Although the Court decided the enforceability of the arbitration provisions in the collective-bargaining agreements by reference to §301 of the Labor Management Relation…
-
NEW England Power Co. v. Asiatic Petroleum Corp., 456 F.2d 183 (1st Cir. 1972)…nder 28 U.S.C. § 1291. See, e. g., County of Middlesex v. Gevyn Construction Corp., 450 F. 2d 53 (1st Cir. 1971); Standard Chlorine of Delaware, Inc. v. Leonard, 384 F. 2d 304, 308 (2d Cir. 1967); cf. Goodall-Sanford, Inc. v. United Textile Workers, 353 U.S. 550, 551-552, 77 S.Ct. 920, 1 L.Ed.2d 1031 (1953) (order directing arbitration under § 301(a) of the Taft-Hartley Act held appealable as a final order); contra, Blount Bros. Construction Co. v. Troitino, 127 U.S.App.D.C. 99, 381 F. 2d 267 (1967). In th…1 / 2
-
Chatham Shipping Co. v. Fertex S.S. Corp., 352 F.2d 291 (2d Cir. 1965)…, 359 U.S. 991, 79 S.Ct. 1121, 3 L.Ed.2d 980 (1959). Moreover, the Supreme Court has- held that an order directing arbitration under § 301(a) of the TaftHartley Act is appealable as a final judgment, Goodall-Sanford, Inc. v. United Textile Workers, 353 U.S. 550, 77 S.Ct. 920, 1 L.Ed.2d 1031 (1953), and although the opinion disclaimed passing on the related question under the Arbitration Act, we perceive no really tenable ground for distinction. Arguments that the aim of arbitration statutes would be better…
Previewing 3 of 49 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Baltimore Contractors, Inc. v. Bodinger, 348 U.S. 176 (U.S. 1955)
- Hildegard Schoenamsgruber v. Hamburg Am. Line, 294 U.S. 454 (U.S. 1935)
- In re Pahlberg Petition, 131 F.2d 968 (2d Cir. 1942)
- Goodall-Sanford, Inc. v. United Textile Workers OF Am., 233 F.2d 104 (1st Cir. 1956)