## Facts

- Local 174 and Lucas Flour Company were parties to a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) governed by federal labor law.
- The CBA gave the employer discretion to discharge employees for “unsatisfactory” work and required disputes to be resolved through compulsory, final, and binding arbitration.
- For interpretation disputes, the CBA expressly required that “during such arbitration, there shall be no suspension of work.”
- An employee (Welsch) was discharged after damaging a forklift; the employer stated the discharge was for unsatisfactory work.
- The union called an eight-day strike to pressure the employer to rehire Welsch.
- After the strike, arbitration upheld the discharge and denied reinstatement.
- The employer sued in Washington state court for strike-related losses and obtained a damages judgment.

## Issues

1. Whether the U.S. Supreme Court had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1257 to review a decision issued by a departmental panel of the Washington Supreme Court without rehearing en banc.
2. Whether LMRA § 301(a) divests state courts of jurisdiction over an employer’s damages action alleging breach of a CBA.
3. Whether state law or federal labor law governs interpretation and enforcement of a CBA in a § 301 action brought in state court.
4. Whether a strike over a dispute subject to compulsory, final, and binding arbitration violates the CBA despite the absence of an explicit no-strike clause covering that dispute.

## Decision

- The Court held the Washington Supreme Court’s departmental decision was a final judgment of the state’s highest court for § 1257 purposes.
- The Court held LMRA § 301(a) did not strip state courts of jurisdiction over the employer’s action.
- The Court held federal substantive law governs § 301 CBA interpretation and displaces conflicting state contract doctrines.
- The Court held the union’s strike violated the CBA because the agreement’s binding arbitration provisions implied a no-strike obligation as to arbitrable disputes.
- The Court affirmed the damages judgment for the employer.

## Legal Principles

- LMRA § 301 authorizes and requires application of federal substantive law to interpret and enforce collective bargaining agreements, including in state-court § 301 litigation.
- Conflicting state-law rules affecting CBA meaning or enforcement must yield to federal labor-law principles to maintain uniformity.
- A CBA clause requiring compulsory, final, and binding arbitration of disputes implies a corresponding no-strike duty for those arbitrable disputes, even absent an express no-strike clause.
- Strikes used to resolve disputes committed to exclusive arbitration may constitute contract breaches supporting employer damages.

## Conclusion

The Court affirmed a state-court damages award against a union, holding that § 301 demands uniform federal labor law for CBA interpretation and that an agreement to resolve disputes by binding arbitration carries an implied obligation not to strike over matters the parties made arbitrable.


Local 174, Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of Am. v. Lucas Flour Co., 369 U.S. 95 (1962)