Carey v. Westinghouse Electric Corp.

Background

A national union that represented "production and maintenance" workers had a contract with Westinghouse that excluded "salaried technical" employees. A different union represented those salaried technical workers. The production union filed a grievance saying some technical employees were actually doing production work. Westinghouse refused to arbitrate, saying the question about who should represent those workers belonged to the federal Labor Board, and New York courts declined to force arbitration.

Reasoning

The Court explained there are two related kinds of disputes: (1) which group of workers should perform particular tasks, and (2) which union should represent those workers. The majority held that a contract clause requiring grievance arbitration can be used to decide such disputes. Arbitration fills a gap the statute does not cover before a strike. The Court emphasized that the federal Labor Board still has the authority to act later and may give weight to an arbitration award or override it if necessary.

Real world impact

The ruling lets agreed arbitration procedures be used to resolve job-assignment fights between unions and employers, which can reduce the need for strikes. It does not strip the Labor Board of power: the Board can later revisit or supersede arbitral results, and parties can still pursue Board proceedings or contract damages in court. The decision encourages private settlement but leaves final regulatory authority with the federal agency.

Dissents or concurrances

A dissent warned that forcing arbitration between one union and the employer could unfairly bind the absent union or leave employers exposed to conflicting obligations; a concurrence favored arbitration to avoid forcing strikes.