Boys Markets, Inc. v. Retail Clerks Local 770

Supreme Court of the United States · 1970 · Labor Law

398 U.S. 235 (1970)

Updated August 1, 2026

Labor Lawinjunctions against strikes over arbitrable disputesSection 301Norris-LaGuardia ActLabor Management Relations Actarbitrationno-strike clauseinjunction

Facts

Boys Markets and Retail Clerks Local 770 were parties to a collective-bargaining agreement requiring adjustment and arbitration of disputes concerning interpretation or application of the agreement and containing a no-strike provision during the contract term. A dispute arose when nonunit employees rearranged merchandise in a supermarket frozen foods section and the union demanded that union personnel restock the cases. When the employer refused, the union called a strike and began picketing. The employer demanded an end to the strike and sought to invoke the contract's grievance and arbitration procedures, then filed suit seeking injunctive relief and specific performance of arbitration.

Issue

Whether the anti-injunction provisions of the Norris-LaGuardia Act bar a federal district court from enjoining a strike that allegedly breaches a no-strike obligation when the underlying dispute is subject to binding arbitration under a collective-bargaining agreement enforceable under § 301(a).

Rule

The Norris-LaGuardia Act does not bar a federal court from granting injunctive relief against a strike where the strike is over a grievance that both parties are contractually bound to arbitrate under a collective-bargaining agreement. Before issuing such relief, the district court must determine that the contract requires arbitration of the dispute, order the employer to arbitrate as a condition of the injunction, and find that ordinary equitable principles justify the injunction, including ongoing or threatened breaches, irreparable injury, and a balance of hardships favoring relief.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Lakeview Packaging, a warehouse operator in Cleveland, and Dockworkers Local 88 are parties to a collective-bargaining agreement requiring final and binding arbitration of disputes over shift assignments. The agreement also bars strikes during the contract term. After a dispute about weekend assignments, the union begins a walkout, and Lakeview files a § 301 action in federal court seeking an injunction and an order compelling arbitration.

What is the strongest argument that the district court may issue the injunction?

Explanation. The majority recognized a narrow exception permitting a federal injunction against a strike when the strike is over a grievance subject to mandatory contractual arbitration. But relief is not automatic: the court must determine the dispute is arbitrable, require the employer to arbitrate as a condition of relief, and apply ordinary equitable principles such as irreparable injury and balance of hardships.