Buffalo Forge Co. v. United Steelworkers of America
United States Supreme Court
428 U.S. 397 (1976)
- Written by Tammy Boggs, JD
Facts
The Buffalo Forge Co. (plaintiff) had collective-bargaining agreements with two local unions of the United Steelworkers of America (the unions) (defendants). The unions represented production and maintenance workers at three Buffalo Forge plants. The collective-bargaining agreements contained no-strike clauses and grievance and arbitration provisions for settling disputes over contract interpretation. Separately, office workers at the three Buffalo Forge plants had been negotiating for months on collective-bargaining terms. The office workers went on strike, and consequently, in solidarity, the unions’ production and maintenance workers honored the office workers’ picket line and refused to work as well. Buffalo Forge filed a complaint in district court alleging that the unions had violated the no-strike clauses and prayed for injunctive relief. Arbitration on the contract dispute had not yet commenced. The district court found that the unions’ workers had gone on strike in “sympathy” rather than over their own grievance and the court was not authorized to issue an injunction under the Norris-LaGuardia Act. The court of appeals affirmed, and the Supreme Court agreed to review the matter.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (White, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 825,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,400 briefs, keyed to 989 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.