## Facts

- Lever Brothers operated a soap-manufacturing plant in Baltimore, Maryland, whose bargaining-unit employees were represented by International Chemical Workers Union, Local 217 under a collective bargaining agreement (CBA).
- The CBA required “due consideration” and “full information” before “outside contracting” of unit work, but required only two weeks’ notice for an “elimination” of work.
- Lever decided to permanently close the Baltimore plant and transfer operations to Hammond, Indiana, treating the move as an “elimination” triggering only the two-week notice requirement.
- The Union asserted the shutdown and relocation constituted “outside contracting,” entitling it to consultation and information under the CBA.
- The CBA required mandatory arbitration of such disputes; the Union filed a grievance and demanded arbitration.
- To prevent the relocation from occurring before arbitration and potentially defeating any meaningful remedy, the Union sought a preliminary injunction to maintain the status quo pending arbitration.
- The district court issued a preliminary injunction preventing the closure and transfer until arbitration concluded.
- While the employer’s appeal was pending, arbitration finished with an award in Lever’s favor, and the injunction expired by its own terms.

## Issues

1. Whether the employer’s appeal from the preliminary injunction was moot after arbitration concluded and the injunction expired.
2. Whether, notwithstanding the Norris–LaGuardia Act, a federal court may issue a status quo injunction pending arbitration under LMRA § 301 consistent with the Boys Markets exception.
3. Whether the threatened plant closure and relocation posed a sufficient risk of frustrating arbitration to justify preliminary injunctive relief under equitable standards.

## Decision

- The Fourth Circuit upheld the district court’s authority to issue a preliminary injunction preserving the status quo pending arbitration in these circumstances.
- The court approved applying Boys Markets principles to employer conduct where interim relief is needed to prevent arbitration from becoming a “hollow formality.”
- The court treated the case as an appropriate vehicle to address the propriety of such relief despite the injunction’s expiration during the appeal.

## Legal Principles

- Although Norris–LaGuardia generally limits federal labor injunctions, Boys Markets permits injunctive relief when necessary to protect the parties’ agreement to arbitrate and to effectuate federal labor policy favoring arbitration.
- A court may enjoin employer action pending arbitration when the underlying dispute is arbitrable (or arguably arbitrable) and the employer’s unilateral action would likely frustrate the arbitrator’s ability to grant effective relief.
- Status quo injunctions are exceptional and require satisfaction of traditional preliminary-injunction criteria, with particular attention to irreparable harm measured by the risk that arbitration will be rendered ineffective, not merely by temporary economic harm.

## Conclusion

The Fourth Circuit recognized that courts may issue narrowly tailored status quo injunctions against employer actions pending arbitration when necessary to preserve the meaningfulness of arbitration under a CBA, despite Norris–LaGuardia’s general anti-injunction policy.


Lever Bros. Co. v. Int’l Chem. Workers Union, Loc. 217, 554 F.2d 115 (4th Cir. 1976)