Iowa Beef Packers, Inc. v. Thompson/Dissent Douglas

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, dissenting.

The arbitration clause in this collective agreement reaches "a grievance pertaining to a violation of the Agreement." The agreement covered both the lunch period and overtime.

The Iowa Supreme Court held that "[t]he present controversy is undoubtedly arbitrable" under the collective agreement. Given the presumption favoring liberal construction of arbitration clauses, Steelworkers v. Warrior & Gulf Co., 363 U.S. 574, 583-583, we should defer to [p231] that ruling. Even under that construction, it seems that a suit for overtime allegedly withheld in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 207 (a)(1) is maintainable. That would mean affirming the Iowa Supreme Court. U.S. Bulk Carriers v. Arguelles, 400 U.S. 351, which kept the courthouse door open, would seem to control this case.

An affirmance would follow, a fortiori, if this collective agreement be construed as not requiring arbitration of this FLSA claim. For then it would seem that the worker would have a choice to sue under the statute or to proceed to arbitration on his contractual claim arising out of the same dispute.

The petition, however, is not dismissed for those reasons but for a wholly different one. It is said that there was a requirement to be "on call" and that that duty conflicted with the lunch or overtime provisions of the agreement. The difficulty is twofold: there was no "on call" grievance ever tendered so far as the record [p232] shows; moreover, the agreement concededly does not cover any "on call" requirement or duty. So there is no conflict between statutory remedy and remedy by arbitration and the difficulty posted is imaginary.

We should "dismiss as improvidently granted" only in exceptional situations and where all nine members of the Court agree. In all other cases the merits of the controversy should be decided. The present case on its facts is simple and uncomplicated; and a decision on the merits is apparently important to unions and employer alike.