John Marshall Harlan II

“ In addition, conscientious handling of grievance claims will enhance the union's prestige with employees. Employer interests, for their part, are served by limiting the choice of remedies available to aggrieved employees. And it cannot be said in the normal situation, that contract grievance procedures are inadequate to protect the interests of an aggrieved employee until the employee has attempted to implement the procedures and found them so. ”

“ If applicable law permitted a court suit for severance pay in any circumstances without prior recourse to available contract remedies, an employer seeking to limit the modes of redress that could be used against him could do so only by eliminating contract grievance procedures for severance-pay claims. ”

“ As a general rule in cases to which federal law applies, federal labor policy requires that individual employees wishing to assert contract grievances must attempt use of the contract grievance procedure agreed upon by employer and union as the mode of redress. ”

“ Grievances depending on severance claims are not critically unlike other types of grievances. Although it is true that the employee asserting the claim will necessarily have accepted his discharge as final, it does not follow that the resolution of his claim can have no effect on future relations between the employer and other employees. ”

“ But unless the contract provides otherwise, [9] there can be no doubt that the employee must afford the union the opportunity to act on his behalf. Congress has expressly approved contract grievance procedures as a preferred method for settling disputes and stabilizing the 'common law' of the plant. ”

“ The proviso of § 9 (a) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 159 (a) (1958 ed.) , is not contra; Black-Clawson Co. v. International Ass'n of Machinists etc., 2 Cir., 313 F.2d 179.↑ See, eG., Summers, Individual Rights in Collective Agreements and Arbitration, 37 N.Y.U.L.Rev. 362 (1962) ; Cox, Rights Under a Labor Agreement, 69 Harv.L.Rev. 601 (1956) ”

“ Illinois Central R. Co., did not require exhaustion (but see Illinois Central R. Co. v. Bolton, 240 Miss. 195, 126 So.2d 524 (1961) ) . Missouri law controlled in Koppal and did require exhaustion. The suing employee therefore lost.↑ See n. ”