Barrentine v. Arkansas-Best Freight System, Inc.

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search


Barrentine v. Arkansas-Best Freight System, Inc., 450 U.S. 728 (1981)
the Supreme Court of the United States
Syllabus
4400297Barrentine v. Arkansas-Best Freight System, Inc., 450 U.S. 728 (1981) — Syllabus1981the Supreme Court of the United States

Supreme Court of the United States

450 U.S. 728

BARRENTINE ET AL.  v.  ARKANSAS-BEST FREIGHT SYSTEM, INC., ET AL.

Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

No. 79-2006.  Argued: Jan. 13, 1981 --- Decided: Apr. 6, 1981

Court Documents
Dissenting Opinion
Burger

Petitioner truckdrivers are not paid for the time spent conducting a required pre-trip safety inspection of respondent employer motor carrier's trucks and transporting trucks that fail such inspection to the employer's on-premises repair facility. Petitioners' union submitted a wage claim for petitioners' pretrip inspection and transportation time to a joint grievance committee pursuant to its collective-bargaining agreement with petitioners' employer. The joint committee rejected the claim without explanation. Petitioners then filed an action in Federal District Court, alleging that the pretrip safety inspection and transportation time was compensable under § 6 of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and that they were therefore entitled to the statutory remedy of actual and liquidated damages, costs, and reasonable attorney's fees. They also alleged that respondent union had breached its duty of fair representation, and sought to have the joint grievance committee's decision set aside and to have proper compensation awarded under the collective-bargaining agreement. The District Court addressed only the fair-representation claim and rejected it. The Court of Appeals affirmed, and also held that the District Court was correct in not addressing the FLSA claim, concluding that petitioners' voluntary submission of their grievances to arbitration barred them from asserting their statutory wage claims in the subsequent court action.

Held: Petitioner's wage claims under the FLSA are not barred by the prior submission of their grievances to the contractual dispute-resolution procedures. Pp. 734–746.

(a) The FLSA rights petitioners seek to assert are independent of the collective-bargaining process. Such rights devolve on petitioners as individual workers, not as members of the union, and are not waivable. While courts should defer to an arbitral decision where the employee's claim is based on rights arising out of a collective-bargaining agreement, different considerations apply where the employee's claim is based on rights arising out of a statute, such as the FLSA, designed to provide minimum substantive guarantees to individual workers. Cf. Alexander v. Gardner-Denver Co., 415 U.S. 36. Pp. 734–741. [p729]

(b) There are two reasons why an employee's right to a minimum wage and overtime pay under the FLSA might be lost if submission of his wage claim to arbitration precluded him from later bringing an FLSA suit in federal court. First, even if the employee's claim were meritorious, his union might, without breaching its duty of fair representation, reasonably and in good faith decide not to support the claim vigorously in arbitration. Second, even when the union has fairly and fully presented the employee's wage claim, the employee's statutory rights might still not be adequately protected. Because the arbitrator is required to effectuate the intent of the parties, rather than to enforce the statute, he may issue a ruling that is inimical to the public policies underlying the FLSA, thus depriving an employee of protected statutory rights. Furthermore, not only are arbitral procedures less protective of individual statutory rights than are judicial procedures, but also arbitrators very often are powerless to grant the aggrieved employees as broad a range of relief. Under the FLSA, courts can award actual and liquidated damages, reasonable attorney's fees, and costs, whereas an arbitrator can award only that compensation authorized by the wage provisions of the collective-bargaining agreement. Pp. 742–745.

615 F.2d 1194, reversed.


Brennan, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Stewart, White, Marshall, Blackmun, Powell, and Stevens, JJ., joined. Burger, C.J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Rehnquist, J., joined, post, p. 746.


David C. Vladeck argued the cause for petitioners. With him on the briefs were Alan B. Morrison and Arthur L. Fox II.


S. Walton Maurras argued the cause and filed a brief for respondents.*


Notes

[edit]

*   Briefs of amici curiae urging reversal were filed by Solicitor General McCree, Deputy Solicitor General Geller, Barbara E. Etkind, Donald S. Shire, Lois G. Williams, and Mary-Helen Mautner for the United States; and by J. Albert Woll and Laurence Gold for the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations.


This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).

Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse