Buffalo Forge Co. v. United Steelworkers

Supreme Court of the United States · 1976 · Labor Law

428 U.S. 397 (1976)

Updated August 1, 2026

Labor Lawsympathy strikesinjunctionsNorris-LaGuardia ActBoys Marketssympathy strikeno-strike clausearbitration

Facts

Buffalo Forge had collective-bargaining agreements with production and maintenance employees represented by the Steelworkers and locals, and those agreements contained both no-strike clauses and grievance-arbitration provisions broad enough to cover disputes about the meaning and application of the no-strike clause. Separate office clerical-technical employees, represented by other locals, struck during negotiations for their first contract and established picket lines at the employer's facilities. In support of those O&T strikers, the production and maintenance employees, at the Union's direction, honored the picket lines and stopped work. The employer claimed the sympathy strike violated the no-strike clause and sought to enjoin the strike pending arbitration of that question.

Issue

May a federal court enjoin a sympathy strike pending an arbitrator's decision on whether the strike violates an express no-strike clause in the collective-bargaining agreement? More specifically, does the Boys Markets exception to the Norris-LaGuardia Act apply when the strike is not over any arbitrable dispute between the striking union and the employer, but the alleged contract breach is itself arbitrable?

Rule

A federal court may not enjoin a sympathy strike pending arbitration merely because the employer alleges that the strike violates an express no-strike clause and that issue is arbitrable. Under Boys Markets, an injunction is permitted only when the strike is over a grievance or dispute that the parties are contractually bound to arbitrate, so that the strike would frustrate the agreed arbitral process.

🔒

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.

Granite River Paper operates a mill in Duluth, Minnesota. Its machine operators, represented by North Woods Workers Local 88, stop work after a separate bargaining unit of warehouse clerks at the same company begins a lawful primary strike; the operators' contract contains both a no-strike clause and a broad arbitration clause covering disputes over contract interpretation, including the no-strike clause.

Granite River sues in federal court under § 301, seeks to compel arbitration of whether the operators' walkout violates the no-strike clause, and asks for an injunction barring the walkout until the arbitrator rules. Should the court issue the injunction on those facts alone?

Explanation. The controlling rule is that a federal court may not enjoin a sympathy strike pending arbitration merely because the employer alleges the strike breaches an express no-strike clause and that issue is arbitrable. The narrow Boys Markets exception applies only when the strike is over a dispute the parties are contractually bound to arbitrate, such that the strike frustrates the arbitral process itself. Here, the operators struck in support of another unit, not over their own arbitrable grievance with the employer.