Boys Markets, Inc. v. Retail Clerks Union, Local 770

1970-06-01

Headline: Decision allows courts to enjoin strikes that breach no‑strike clauses when contracts require arbitration, overruling prior rule and making it easier for employers to halt picketing while arbitration proceeds.

Holding: The Court overruled Sinclair and held that federal courts may grant injunctions to stop strikes that breach no‑strike and arbitration provisions when the court first compels arbitration and finds injunctive relief justified under ordinary equity principles.

Real World Impact:

Makes it easier for employers to stop contract-breaching strikes when arbitration is required.
Reduces incentive for forum shopping that avoided injunctions in state courts.
Requires courts to order arbitration and weigh equitable harms before enjoining strikes.

Topics: labor strikes, collective bargaining, arbitration enforcement, court injunctions

Summary

Background

An employer (a supermarket company) and a union were bound by a collective-bargaining agreement that required grievances to go to arbitration and included a no-strike clause. After a dispute over who should restock frozen food cases, the union called a strike and picketed. The employer sought a court order to stop the strike and to compel arbitration; the federal district court ordered arbitration and enjoined the strike, and the court of appeals reversed based on an earlier decision called Sinclair.

Reasoning

The Court reexamined whether the federal anti-injunction law (the Norris‑LaGuardia Act) prevents federal courts from ordering injunctions in cases where the contract itself requires arbitration. The Justices concluded Sinclair was wrongly decided and overruled it. The Court explained that when a contract contains a mandatory grievance and arbitration procedure, a federal court may enjoin a strike only after (1) finding the dispute is covered by the contract, (2) ordering arbitration as a condition of relief, and (3) applying ordinary fairness and equity tests (such as whether irreparable harm exists and how harms balance between the parties). The opinion stressed that a related removal rule had created a forum-shopping problem that undermined uniform labor policy.

Real world impact

Moving forward, employers who can show their contract requires arbitration and that equitable factors favor intervention may obtain injunctions to stop contract-breaking strikes. The ruling is narrow: injunctions are not automatic and courts must first order arbitration and consider equity. The Court reversed the appeals court and upheld the district court’s injunction in this case.

Dissents or concurrances

A concurrence agreed with overruling Sinclair. A dissent argued Congress, not the Court, should change the statutory balance and defended the original Sinclair interpretation.