Goodall-Sanford, Inc. v. United Textile Workers, A. F. L. Local 1802
U.S.
Citation analytics
How this case sits in the citation network, derived from CiteLaw's graph of published opinions.
Citations by decade
Courts citing this case
Most recently cited by10
- 2025APM Terminals Mobile, LLC v. International Longshoremen's Association, AFL-CIO 11th Cir.
- 2018Regional Local Union No. 846 v. Gulf Coast Rebar, Inc. 9th Cir.
- 2015Iatse Local 720 v. Insync Show Productions 9th Cir.
- 2015International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employee & Moving Picture Technicians, Artist, & Allied Crafts of the United States v. InSync Show Productions, Inc. 9th Cir.
- 2015United Steel, Paper & Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial & Service Workers International Union AFL-CIO-CLC v. Wise Alloys, LLC 11th Cir.
- 2005IAM Lodge 2121 v. Goodrich Corp 5th Cir.
- 2005International Ass'n of Machinists & Aerospace Workers Local Lodge 2121 v. Goodrich Corp. 5th Cir.
- 2004In re the Arbitration Between Rollins, Inc. & Orkin Inc. M.D. Fla.
- 2002Baugher v. Dekko Heating Technologies N.D. Ind.
- 2001Oil, Chemical, & Atomic Workers International Union v. Conoco, Inc. 10th Cir.
Cites 1 statute
- Final decisions of district courts
Cites 5 cases
- Schoenamsgruber v. Hamburg American Line
- Baltimore Contractors, Inc. v. Bodinger
- United Textile Workers, Local 1802 v. Goodall-Sanford, Inc.
- Goodall-Sanford, Inc. v. United Textile Workers, Local 1802
- In re Pahlberg Petition
Counts reflect decisions in the CiteLaw corpus and may lag very recent opinions.
Opinion
GOODALL-SANFORD, INC., v. UNITED TEXTILE WORKERS OF AMERICA, A. F. L. LOCAL 1802, et al.
Judges
- Mr. Justice Black took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
Attorneys
- Douglas M. Orr argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the brief were William B. Mahoney and Daniel T. Drummond, Jr.
- David E. Feller argued the cause for respondents. With him on the brief were Sidney W. Wernick and Arthur J. Goldberg.
Delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case, a companion case to No. 211, Textile Workers Union of America v. Lincoln Mills of Alabama, ante, p. 448, was brought by respondent-union in the District Court to compel specific performance of a grievance arbitration provision of a collective bargaining agreement between it and petitioner. The controversy arose over the layoff of employees incident to a curtailment of production and a liquidation of the plants in question. Petitioner terminated the employment of the men who were laid off. The respondent protested the termination of employment, claiming that the men should not have been discharged, thus preserving certain accrued rights to fringe benefits (such as insurance, pensions, and vacations) payable to laid-off employees.
The District Court granted specific performance. 131 F. Supp. 767. The Court of Appeals affirmed, 233 F. 2d 104, relying on its prior decision in General Electric Co. v. United Electrical Workers, ante, p. 547. For the reasons given in No. 211, Textile Workers Union of America v. Lincoln Mills of Alabama, ante, p. 448, we think the Court of Appeals was correct in affirming the District Court’s judgment ordering enforcement of the agreement to arbitrate.
There remains the question whether an order directing arbitration is appealable. This case is not comparable to Baltimore Contractors v. Bodinger, 348 U. S. 176, which held that a stay pending arbitration was not a “final decision” within the meaning of 28 U. S. C. § 1291. Nor need we consider cases like In re Pahlberg, 131 F. 2d 968, and Schoenamsgruber v. Hamburg Line, 294 U. S. 454, holding that an order directing arbitration under the United States Arbitration Act is not appealable. The right enforced here is one arising under § 301 (a) of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947. Arbitration is not merely a step in judicial enforcement of a claim nor auxiliary to a main proceeding, but the full relief sought. A decree under § 301 (a) ordering enforcement of an arbitration provision in a collective bargaining agreement is, therefore, a “final decision” within the meaning of 28 U. S. C. § 1291.
[For dissenting opinion of Mr. Justice Frankfurter, see ante, p. 460.]
Affirmed.
Mr. Justice Burton, whom Mr. Justice Harlan joins, concurs in the result in this case for the reasons set forth in his concurrence in No. 211, Textile Workers Union of America v. Lincoln Mills of Alabama, ante, p. 459.
Mr. Justice Black took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.