Supreme Court of the United States, 1957

Goodall-Sanford, Inc. v. United Textile Workers, A. F. L. Local 1802

Supreme Court of the United States · Decided June 3, 1957 · Douglas, Black

353 U.S. 550; 77 S. Ct. 920; 1 L. Ed. 2d 1031; 1957 U.S. LEXIS 1622; 40 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2118 (United States Reports)

Counsel

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.

Cases that cite this one

106 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.

International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employee & Moving Picture Technicians, Artist, & Allied Crafts of the United States v. InSync Show Productions, Inc. (9th Cir. 2015)
In the Matter of David Livingston, as President of District 65, Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union, Aflcio v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. (2d Cir. 1963)
International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers Local Lodge 2121 Afl-Cio v. Goodrich Corporation, Formerly Known as Bf Goodrich Company (5th Cir. 2005)
Gavlik Construction Co. v. H. F. Campbell Co. (3d Cir. 1975)
The Armstrong-Norwalk Rubber Corporation v. Local Union No. 283, United Rubber, Cork, Linoleum and Plastic Workers of America, A.F.L.C.I.O. (2d Cir. 1959)
Oil, Chemical, & Atomic Workers International Union v. Conoco, Inc. (10th Cir. 2001)
Dorothy Zosky v. Daniel Boyer and Boenning and Scattergood (3d Cir. 1988)
Union Pacific Railroad Company v. United Transportation Union, Also Known as C & T, Also Known as Utu Kent H. Madison (8th Cir. 1993)
Richard Abernathy v. Southern California Edison (9th Cir. 1989)
Peter Ottley, as President of Local 144, Hotel, Hospital, Nursing Home & Allied Services Union, Seiu, Afl-Cio v. Sheepshead Nursing Home (2d Cir. 1982)
Brandon v. Hines (D.C. 1981)
A. L. Kornman Company v. Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America (6th Cir. 1959)
Refinery Employees Union of Lake Charles Area v. Continental Oil Company (5th Cir. 1959)
Coleman Co. v. International Union (Kan. 1957)
Howard Electrical and Mechanical Company, Inc., a Colorado Corporation v. Frank Briscoe Company, Inc., a New Jersey Corporation (9th Cir. 1985)
No. 82-4718 (9th Cir. 1984)
United Food Workers Union, Locals 197, 373, 428, 588, 775, 839, 870, 1119, 1179 & 1532 v. Alpha Beta Co. (9th Cir. 1984)
IAM Lodge 2121 v. Goodrich Corp (5th Cir. 2005)
Nos. 83-3490, 83-3491 (3d Cir. 1985)
United Steelworkers of America, District 36, Local 8249 v. Adbill Management Corp. (3d Cir. 1985)
United Steelworkers of America v. American Smelting and Refining Co. (3d Cir. 1981)
Peter F. Clark, as President of Ice Cream Drivers and Employees Union Local 757, Etc. v. Kraftco Corporation (2d Cir. 1971)
United Steel, Paper & Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial & Service Workers International Union AFL-CIO-CLC v. Wise Alloys, LLC (11th Cir. 2015)
Parker v. K & L Gates, LLP (D.C. 2013)
In re the Arbitration Between Rollins, Inc. & Orkin Inc. (United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida 2004)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

Mr. Justice Douglas

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 *551 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 *552 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.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.