Boys Markets, Inc. v. Retail Clerks Union, Local 770

Boys Markets, Inc. v. Retail Clerks Union, Local 770
Supreme Court of the United States
Decided June 1, 1970
Full case name	Boys Markets, Inc. v. Retail Clerks Union, Local 770
Citations	398 U.S. 235 (more)
Holding
Injunctive relief for a violation of a no-strike clause does not necessarily violate the NLRA or the NLA. The federal court must order the employer to submit the matter to arbitration as a condition of ordering the relief.
Court membership
Chief Justice Warren E. Burger Associate Justices Hugo Black · William O. Douglas John M. Harlan II · William J. Brennan Jr. Potter Stewart · Byron White Thurgood Marshall
Case opinions
Majority	Brennan
Concurrence	Stewart
Dissent	Black
Laws applied
National Labor Relations Act; Norris–LaGuardia Act
This case overturned a previous ruling or rulings
Sinclair Refining Co. v. Atkinson

Boys Markets, Inc. v. Retail Clerks Union, Local 770, 398 U.S. 235 (1970), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that injunctive relief for a violation of a no-strike clause does not necessarily violate the NLRA or the NLA. The federal court must order the employer to submit the matter to arbitration as a condition of ordering the relief.

Background

Boys Markets and a local chapter of the Retail Clerks Union were parties to a collective bargaining agreement containing a provision that all controversies concerning its interpretation or application should be resolved by arbitration and that there should be no work stoppage, lockout, picketing, or boycotts during the life of the contract. A dispute arose and, when Boys Markets did not accede to union demands, a labor strike was called and the union began to picket Boys Markets' establishment. Boys Markets' effort to invoke the contract's arbitration procedures being unsuccessful, it sought injunctive relief in the state court, which issued a temporary restraining order. The union removed the case to the federal District Court, which ordered arbitration and enjoined the strike and the picketing. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, considering itself bound by Sinclair Refining Co. v. Atkinson, which held that Section 4 of the Norris–La Guardia Act bars a federal district court from enjoining a strike in breach of a no-strike clause in a collective bargaining agreement, even though that agreement contains binding arbitration provisions enforceable under Section 301(a) of the Labor Management Relations Act.

Opinion of the court

The Supreme Court issued an opinion on June 1, 1970. In Avco Corp. v. Machinists, the Supreme Court held that a suit for breach of a collective bargaining agreement can be removed to federal court under federal question jurisdiction. Once a case is removed to federal court, it must obey federal procedural law. Sinclair combined with Avco Corp. meant that a labor dispute case could be filed in a state court where an injunction could have been issued but immediately be removed to a federal court prohibited from issuing an injunction. In Boys Market, the Supreme Court described this as "anomalous." The court overruled Sinclair.

External links

• Text of Boys Markets, Inc. v. Retail Clerks Union, Local 770, 398 U.S. 235 (1970) is available from: Cornell Findlaw Justia

This article incorporates written opinion of a United States federal court. As a work of the U.S. federal government, the text is in the public domain.