District Court for the district in which the arbitrator sits. Id. It is clear, therefore, that if the statute applies in the present case, the union is entitled to enforcement of the subpoenas duces tecum. See, e.g., Great Scott Supermarkets, Inc. v. Local Union No. 337, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffers and Warehousemen of North America, 363 F. Supp. 1351, 1353 (E.D.Mich.1973); Local Lodge 1746, International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers v. Pratt & Whitney, 329 F. Supp. 283, 1286 (D.Conn.1971).
The United States Supreme Court, however, has never expressly held that the federal statute applies to labor arbitrations. Dogherra v. Safeway Stores, Inc., 679 F.2d 1293, 1297 (9th Cir.1982). In addition, the lower federal courts are divided on this issue, e.g., Chauffers, Teamsters, Warehousemen and Helpers, Local Union No., 135 v. Jefferson Trucking Co., 628 F.2d 1023, 1026 (7th Cir.1980), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1125, 101 S. Ct. 942, 67 L. Ed. 2d 111 (1981); Hughes-Bechtol, Inc. v. West Virginia Board of Regents, 527 F. Supp. 1366, 1378 n. 2 (S.D.Ohio 1981). Compare Electronics Corp. v. International Union of Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers, AFL-CIO Local 272, 492 F.2d 1255, 1258 (1st Cir.1974) and Pietro Scalzitti Co. v. International Union of Operating Engineers, Local No. 150, 351 F.2d 576, 579-80 (7th Cir.1965) with Ludwig Honold Mfg. Co. v. Fletcher, 405 F.2d 1123, 1227 n. 18 (3d Cir.1969), and there has been a certain amount of confusion within this circuit concerning the statute's applicability to arbitration clauses in collective bargaining agreements. Compare Newark Stereotypers' Union Local No. 18 v. Newark Morning Ledger Co., 397 F.2d 594, 596 & n.2 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 393 U.S. 954, 89 S. Ct. 378, 21 L. Ed. 2d 365 (1968) with Ludwig Honold Mfg. Co. v. Fletcher, 405 F.2d at 1127 n. 18.
The source of this uncertainty appears to be the statute's proviso that nothing in the Act "shall apply to contracts of employment of seamen, railroad employees, or any other class of workers engaged in foreign or interstate commerce." 9 U.S.C. § 1. In Amalgamated Ass'n of Street, Electric Ry. and Motor Coach Employees, Local 1210 v. Pennsylvania Greyhound Lines, Inc., 192 F.2d 310 (3d Cir.1951), the Third Circuit considered the question whether the Act provided the federal courts with power to enforce arbitration clauses in collective bargaining agreements. The court observed that the Act was passed during an era in which there was "widespread dissatisfaction with compulsion from the federal bench in labor disputes." Id. at 313. Hence, the court stated, it was reasonable to conclude that Congress did not wish to create "pointless friction in an already sensitive area" by permitting the Act to apply to labor agreements. Id. The court concluded, therefore, that the exclusion regarding "contracts of employment" was intended to forestall the statute's application in cases involving labor agreements covering workers engaged in interstate commerce. Id. at 313-14.
The court refined its analysis two years later in Tenney Engineering Inc. v. United Electrical Radio & Machine Workers, Local 437, 207 F.2d 450 (3d Cir.1953), by focusing upon the type of labor agreement excluded from the operation of the statute. The court noted that the Act was drafted to exclude the contracts of those workers "engaged in" interstate commerce. Id. at 452. Observing that the statute had been drafted in the 1920's -- an era in which Congress' commerce power had not yet been fully explained and developed, see, e.g., Hammer v. Dagenhart, 247 U.S. 251, 275-76, 38 S. Ct. 529, 532-533, 62 L. Ed. 1101 (1918) -- the court concluded that the Act's exclusion applied only to those collective bargaining agreements covering "employees engaged in interstate transportation or in work so closely related to it as to be practically a part of it." 207 F.2d at 453 (footnote omitted).
After the Pennsylvania Greyhound and Tenney Engineering cases had been decided, it appeared clear that the federal arbitration statute would provide a jurisdictional basis for the enforcement of arbitration clauses in all labor agreements except for those covering transportation workers. After the landmark case of Textile Workers Union v. Lincoln Mills, 353 U.S. 448, 77 S. Ct. 912, 1 L. Ed. 2d 972 (1957), however, it quickly became apparent that the federal courts would no longer be required to resort to the U.S. Arbitration Act to enforce arbitration clauses in collective bargaining agreements. In Lincoln Mills, the Supreme Court held that section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 185, not only provides the federal courts with jurisdiction to entertain suits for violation of collective bargaining contracts, but also authorizes them "to fashion a body of federal law for the enforcement of these . . . agreements and includes within that federal law specific performance of promises to arbitrate grievances." 353 U.S. at 450-51, 77 S. Ct. at 914-915. Notably, the Lincoln Mills Court did not rely upon the federal arbitration statute in reaching its result. Justice Frankfurter, dissenting in Lincoln Mills, commented:
In 1925, Congress passed the United States Arbitration Act . . ., making executory agreements to arbitrate specifically enforceable in the federal courts, but explicitly excluding "contracts of employment" of workers engaged in interstate commerce from its scope. Naturally enough, I find rejection, though not explicit, of the availability of the Federal Arbitration Act to enforce arbitration clauses in collective bargaining agreements in the silent treatment given that Act by the Court's opinion. If an Act that authorizes the federal courts to enforce arbitration provisions in contracts generally, but specifically denies authority to decree that remedy for "contracts of employment," were available, the Court would hardly spin such power out of the empty darkness of § 301. I would make this rejection explicit, recognizing that when Congress passed legislation to enable arbitration agreements to be enforced by the federal courts, it saw fit to exclude this remedy with respect to labor contracts.