CHAUFFEURS, TEAMSTERS AND HELPERS LOCAL UNION NO. 795 ET AL.
v.
YELLOW TRANSIT FREIGHT LINES, INC., ET AL.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Grievance Machinery cases and more on FLexlaw
Per Curiam.
Reversed. Sinclair Rjg. Co. v. Atkinson, ante, p. 195.
Mr. Justice Frankfurter took no part in the decision of this case.
Mr. Justice White took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
Mr. Justice Brennan,
with whom Mr. Justice Douglas and Mr. Justice Harlan join,
concurring.
Since it is clear that the collective bargaining agreement involved in this case does not bind either party to arbitrate any dispute, I agree that no injunction should be granted.* See Sinclair Rfg. Co. v. Atkinson, ante, p.215 (dissentingopinion).
*
The grievance machinery emphasizes voluntary settlements through negotiations between employer and union representatives. Settlement is first to be attempted between the employer and the local union involved and, failing adjustment, negotiated settlement is to be attempted by a joint state committee consisting of equal numbers of employer and union representatives. If a majority of that committee “settles a dispute,” “[s]uch a decision will be final and binding on both parties.” If a joint state committee fails to settle a dispute, a negotiated settlement is then to be attempted by a joint area committee consisting of equal numbers of employer and union representatives duly elected by the various joint state committees. This is the last stage unless there is agreement at that point to submit unsettled disputes to arbitration. Obviously, either employer or union representatives are free to prevent arbitration.. For the contract provisions are:
“(d) Deadlocked cases may be submitted to umpire handling if a majority of the Joint Area Committee determines to submit such matter to an umpire for decision. Otherwise either party shall be permitted all legal or economic recourse.
“(f) In the event of strikes, work-stoppages or other activities which are permitted in case of deadlock, default, or failure to comply with majority decisions, no interpretation of this Agreement by any tribunal shall be binding upon the Union or affect the legality or lawfulness of the strike unless the Union stipulates to be bound by such interpretation, it being the intention of the parties to resolve all questions of interpretation by mutual agreement. Nothing herein shall prevent legal proceedings by the Employer where the strike is in violation of this Agreement.”
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Buffalo Forge Co. v. United Steelworkers of Am., Afl-Cio, 428 U.S. 397 (U.S. 1976)…have arisen. See ante, at 404 n. 9. Future litigation of this character would, of course, be minimized by clarifying amendments to existing no-strike clauses. One week after the decision in Sinclair, the Court decided Teamsters v. Yellow Transit, 370 U. S. 711, by -per curiam order citing only Sinclair. The dissenters in Sinclair, whose position was substantially adopted in Boys Markets, concurred in Yellow Transit because “the collective bargaining agreement involved in this case does not bind either par…
-
Am. Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Commc'ns Workers OF Am., AFL-CIO, 985 F.2d 855 (6th Cir. 1993)…1594 n. 22 (quoting the A.B.A. Sinclair Report 242), whether such deprivation is permanent or temporary. See Norris-LaGuardia Act, 29 U.S.C. § 104 (prohibiting both temporary and permanent injunctions). In Teamsters v. Yellow Transit Freight Lines, 370 U.S. 711, 82 S.Ct. 1293, 8 L.Ed.2d 792 (1962), the Supreme Court held that a no-strike injunction had been issued in violation of the Norris-LaGuardia Act. The strike was over a labor dispute subject to grievance procedures similar to those in the collective…