## Facts

- Buffalo Forge Company had collective-bargaining agreements with United Steelworkers locals representing production and maintenance (P&M) employees.
- The agreements contained no-strike clauses and grievance-arbitration provisions for disputes over contract interpretation and application.
- Separate “office clerical-technical” (O&T) employees, represented by different unions, struck during negotiations for a first collective-bargaining agreement and picketed Buffalo Forge’s plants.
- P&M employees honored the O&T picket lines and stopped work in a sympathy strike.
- Buffalo Forge sued under § 301(a) of the Labor Management Relations Act, seeking damages, an injunction to end the sympathy strike, and an order compelling arbitration over whether the sympathy strike breached the no-strike clause.
- The district court and the Second Circuit refused to enjoin the strike, reasoning the Norris–LaGuardia Act barred injunctive relief because the sympathy strike was not over an arbitrable grievance.

## Issues

1. Whether a federal court may, under § 301 LMRA and the *Boys Markets* doctrine, enjoin a sympathy strike pending arbitration of whether the strike violates a contractual no-strike clause when the strike is not over an underlying arbitrable dispute between the employer and the striking employees.
2. Whether an allegation that a strike violates an arbitrable no-strike clause, standing alone, brings the case within the *Boys Markets* exception to the Norris–LaGuardia Act.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court affirmed, 5–4, holding the district court lacked power to enjoin the sympathy strike pending arbitration on the no-strike clause question.
- The Court concluded the sympathy strike was not over any dispute between Buffalo Forge and the P&M employees that was even arguably subject to the agreements’ arbitration provisions.
- The Court rejected the argument that because the no-strike clause issue was arbitrable, an injunction could issue to maintain the status quo while arbitration proceeded.
- The dissent would have allowed an injunction to protect the employer’s claimed contractual right to continued work while arbitration resolved whether sympathy strikes were barred.

## Legal Principles

- The Norris–LaGuardia Act generally forbids federal court injunctions in labor disputes; *Boys Markets* permits a narrow exception.
- An injunction under *Boys Markets* is available only when a strike is over an underlying dispute that the parties are contractually bound to arbitrate, and the strike functions to evade that arbitration obligation.
- A sympathy strike not tied to an arbitrable dispute between the employer and the striking employees does not fit the *Boys Markets* exception, even if the employer claims the strike breaches an arbitrable no-strike clause.
- § 301 permits suits for damages and enforcement of arbitration obligations, but it does not authorize injunctions barred by Norris–LaGuardia.

## Conclusion

The Court held that federal courts may not enjoin a sympathy strike pending arbitration of a no-strike clause dispute when the work stoppage is not over an arbitrable grievance between the employer and the striking employees, preserving Norris–LaGuardia’s broad bar on labor injunctions and limiting *Boys Markets* to arbitration-avoiding strikes.


Buffalo Forge Co. v. United Steelworkers of Am., 428 U.S. 397 (1976)