Hines v. Anchor Motor Freight, Inc.

424 U.S. 554 (1976)

From our private database of 45,900+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Hines v. Anchor Motor Freight, Inc.

United States Supreme Court
424 U.S. 554 (1976)

Facts

Anchor Motor Freight, Inc. (Anchor) (defendant) employed Burtice Hines and other truck drivers (collectively, the drivers) (plaintiffs). In June 1967, Anchor discharged the drivers for allegedly abusing Anchor’s lodging-reimbursement policy by seeking reimbursement for motel expenses that exceeded the amounts the drivers had actually paid. The drivers’ union (defendant) asserted the drivers’ innocence, and the parties agreed to arbitrate the matter pursuant to their collective-bargaining agreement (CBA). At the arbitration, Anchor presented motel receipts and sworn statements supporting the discharge. Neither the drivers nor the union presented any evidence contradicting Anchor’s evidence, and the arbitration committee sustained the discharge. Subsequently, it was revealed that the motel clerk was the true culprit and that he had recorded false receipts in the motel’s records and stolen money paid by the drivers. The drivers sued Anchor and their local and international unions, alleging that Anchor had discharged the drivers without cause in violation of the CBA. The drivers further asserted that the unions had violated their duty to fairly represent the drivers by failing to fully investigate Anchor’s allegations. Anchor asserted that the arbitrators’ decision sustaining the discharge was binding on the drivers under a CBA provision stating that arbitral decisions were final and binding on all parties. The trial court granted summary judgment for Anchor and the unions based on the finality of the arbitrators’ decision. The appellate court affirmed the grant of summary judgment for Anchor and the international union but reversed with respect to the local union, finding that there were sufficient facts to infer the union’s bad faith or arbitrary conduct. However, the appellate court stated that the CBA’s finality-of-arbitration provision had to be observed because there was no evidence of any misconduct by Anchor or any conspiracy between the unions and Anchor. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (White, J.)

Concurrence (Stewart, J.)

Dissent (Rehnquist, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 735,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 735,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 45,900 briefs, keyed to 984 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.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 735,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 45,900 briefs - keyed to 984 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership