# Carey v. Westinghouse Electric Corp.

> Supreme Court of the United States · January 6, 1964 · 375 U.S. 261

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9422698

## Case

- **Full name:** Carey, President of the International Union of Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers, Afl-Cio, v. Westinghouse Electric Corp.
- **Court:** Supreme Court of the United States
- **Decided:** January 6, 1964
- **Citations:** 375 U.S. 261; 55 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2042; 84 S. Ct. 401; 11 L. Ed. 2d 320; 1964 U.S. LEXIS 2267
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Harlan
- **Judges:** Douglas, Harlan, Black, Goldberg, Clark
- **Cited by:** 465 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9422698

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that Section 301 gives a federal court jurisdiction over a suit to enforce an arbitration clause in a collective bargaining agreement even if the case is "truly a representation case" that could also be heard by the NLRB under Section 9 of the NLRA
- holding that union could compel arbitration, stating, “However the dispute be considered — whether one involving work assignment or one concerning representation — we see no barrier to use of the arbitration procedure.”
- explaining that "a [National Labor Relations] Board certification in a representation proceeding . . . does not per se preclude the employer from adding to, or subtracting from, the employees' work assignments"
- explaining that “a [National Labor Relations] Board certification in a representation proceeding ... does not per se preclude the employer from adding to, or subtracting from, the employees’ work assignments”
- noting that a dispute can be “a controversy as to whether certain work should be performed by workers in one bargaining unit or those in another; or . . . a controversy as to which union should represent the employees doing particular work”

## Opinion text

*273 Mr. Justice Harlan,
concurring.
I join the Court's opinion with a brief comment. As is recognized by all, neither position in this case is without its difficulties. Lacking a clear-cut command in the statute itself, the choice in substance lies between a course which would altogether preclude any attempt at resolving disputes of this kind by arbitration, and one which at worst will expose those concerned to the hazard of duplicative proceedings. The undesirable consequences of the first alternative are inevitable, those of the second conjectural. As between the two, I think the Court at this early stage of experience in this area rightly chooses the latter.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9422698. Public record. Not legal advice.