method for settling disputes was declared by Congress to be 'final adjustment by a method agreed upon by the parties' § (203(d) of the Act, 29 U.S.C. § 173(d)). 'That policy can be effectuated only if the means chosen by the parties for settlement of their differences under a collective bargaining agreement is given full play' * * *. Under our federal labor policy, therefore, we have every reason to preserve the stabilizing influence of the collective bargaining contract in a situation such as this. We could enforce only the no-strike clause by refusing a stay in the suit for damages in the District Court. We can enforce both the no-strike clause and the agreement to arbitrate by granting a stay until the claim for damages is arbitrated. This we prefer to do. * * *'
'See also, e.g., John Wiley & Sons, Inc. v. Livingston, 376 U.S. 543, 549-550, 84 S. Ct. 909, 11 L. Ed. 2d 898 (1964). * * *'
We therefore stay these proceedings on our own motion.
In reaching the conclusion that the action must be stayed pending the grievance process, we have considered, but do not pass upon, defendants' arguments. None of these arguments in any way compels us to reach a different conclusion.
We decline to pass upon the question of this court's jurisdiction. A decision on this question would be in the nature of an advisory opinion because of the likelihood that the grievance proceeding will be dispositive of the matter. The attack upon this court's jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.A. § 185(a) obviously presents no hurdle to the grievance procedure. Neither does the question of the standing of certain parties not members of PMTA allegedly not parties to the contract. These parties argue that the shipping agents that are parties to the contract acted as both principals to the contract and agents in behalf of those plaintiffs not expressly made a party to the contract. This we deem a question of the interpretation of the agreement, involving as it does the intention of the parties and therefore is one for the grievance procedure. Cf. Restatement of Agency 2d § 302 (1958). The third issue is also one for determination in the grievance proceedings.
Defendants' fourth argument is that because the activity of the defendants was protected under Sections 7 and 8 of the Labor Management Relations Act, their activity may not be the basis of an action for damages. It should be noted that although the defendants argue that the activity which is the subject of the complaint -- striking in violation of the collective bargaining agreements -- is protected, the facts are not sufficiently developed for a determination of the nature of the activity complained of. For example, it is not clear why defendants stopped work on the waterfront, what activities they engaged in, nor at what parties their activities were aimed. Cf. Labor Management Relations Act, as amended, 1959, § 8(b)(4), 29 U.S.C.A. § 158(b)(4).
Passing this problem, we go on to decide whether the claim of protected activity is an impediment to the grievance proceedings. Because the dispute will be submitted to arbitration a holding regarding this court's jurisdiction is now unnecessary. We refrain from deciding now whether the nature of defendants' activity prevents this court from entertaining the present action.
We hold that if the defendants bargaining away their right to engage in the activity complained of, the cannot then seek the protection of Section 7 to prevent the other parties to the contract from enforcing the agreement through the grievance procedure.
The policy of promoting industrial peace through encouragement of the collective bargaining process would be defeated if the parties could not be sure whether the collective bargaining agreement would be honored. See Dowd Box Co. v. Courtney, 368 U.S. 502, 509, 82 S. Ct. 519, 7 L. Ed. 2d 483 (1962). When an employer and a labor union sit down at the collective bargaining table, one side will offer the other benefits in return for the promise of certain benefits from the latter. Put another way, the relinquishment by one side of certain rights is the quid pro quo for certain concessions made by the other. Cf. United Steelworkers v. Warrior & G. Nav. Co., 363 U.S. 574, 578 n. 4, 80 S. Ct. 1347, 4 L. Ed. 2d 1409, (1960). Refusal by the courts to permit the enforcement through the grievance procedure of an agreement that waives certain rights of each party to the agreement would be a step toward undermining the collective bargaining process. We conclude that if the union, as the collective bargaining representative of the employees, agreed to refrain from the conduct complained of in this action, whatever rights the employees had under Section 7 to engage in such activity were waived. See Armco Steel Corporation v. N.L.R.B., 344 F.2d 621 (C.A. 6, 1965). Cf. Teamsters Union v. Lucas Flour Co., 369 U.S. 95, 82 S. Ct. 571, 7 L. Ed. 2d 593 (1962).
And now, this 30th day of June, 1965, it is ordered as follows:
1. The motion to dismiss of International Longshoremen's Association, AFL-CIO; Local 1291, ILA; Local 1566, ILA; Local 1242, ILA; Local 1242-1, ILA; is denied, without prejudice.
2. Proceedings in the present case are stayed pending process of the alleged disputes pursuant to the grievance procedure provided for by the respective collective bargaining agreements.