UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT DECISIONS ON-LINE

A collective bargaining contract between an employer in a business affecting interstate commerce and a union of its employees reserved to the employer the right to discharge any employee for unsatisfactory work and provided for compulsory, final and binding settlement by arbitration of any dispute between the employer and any employee; but it did not contain an explicit no-strike clause applicable to such disputes. The employer discharged an employee for unsatisfactory work, and the union called a strike to force the employer to rehire him. The employer sued the union in a Washington State Court for damages for business losses caused by the strike. The trial court awarded a judgment in favor of the employer, and a Department of the Supreme Court of Washington affirmed. Without petitioning that Court for a rehearing en banc, the union petitioned this Court for certiorari, which was granted.

Held:

1. Under Washington law, the judgment below was a final judgment of the State's highest court, and this Court has jurisdiction of this case under 28 U.S.C. §1257. Gorman v. Washington University, 316 U. S. 98, distinguished. Pp. 369 U. S. 98-101.

2. Section 301 (a) of the Labor Management Relations Act, 197, did not deprive the state courts of jurisdiction over this case. Charles Dowd Box Co. v. Courtney, 368 U. S. 502. P. 369 U. S. 101.

3. In a case such as this, incompatible doctrines of local law must give way to principles of federal labor law. Pp. 369 U. S. 102-104.

4. Under federal labor law, a strike to settle a dispute which a collective bargaining agreement provides shall be settled exclusively and finally by compulsory arbitration constitutes a violation of the agreement, even when the agreement does not contain an explicit no-strike clause. Pp. 369 U. S. 104-106.

57 Wash.2d 95, 356 P.2d 1, affirmed. clubjuris

Page 369 U. S. 96