Page:United States Reports 502 OCT. TERM 1991.pdf/259

 502us1$$9Z 08-21-96 15:22:41 PAGES OPINPGT

Cite as: 502 U. S. 93 (1991)

101

Opinion of the Court

were not limited to suits brought by the contracting parties and that an individual employee could sue under § 301 for violation of an employer-union contract. We noted: “The rights of individual employees concerning rates of pay and conditions of employment are a major focus of the negotiation and administration of collective bargaining contracts. Individual claims lie at the heart of the grievance and arbitration machinery, are to a large degree inevitably intertwined with union interests and many times precipitate grave questions concerning the interpretation and enforceability of the collective bargaining contract on which they are based.” 371 U. S., at 200. In concluding that the employee’s suit was one provided for by § 301, we observed that under a contrary holding there would be “ ‘[t]he possibility that individual contract terms might have different meanings under state and federal law [which] would inevitably exert a disruptive influence upon both the negotiation and administration of collective agreements.’ ” Id., at 200–201, quoting Teamsters v. Lucas Flour Co., 369 U. S. 95, 103 (1962). Similar considerations bear on this case. Congress expressly provided in § 301(a) for federal jurisdiction over contracts between an employer and a labor organization or between labor organizations. Collective-bargaining agreements are the principal form of contract between an employer and a labor organization. Individual union members, who are often the beneficiaries of provisions of collectivebargaining agreements, may bring suit on these contracts under § 301. Likewise, union constitutions are an important form of contract between labor organizations. Members of a collective-bargaining unit are often the beneficiaries of such interunion contracts, and when they are, they likewise may bring suit on these contracts under § 301.