William O. Douglas

“ We stated:
'We conclude that the substantive law to apply in suits under § 301 (a) is federal law, which the courts must fashion from the policy of our national labor laws. * * * The Labor Management Relations Act expressly furnishes some substantive law. It points out what the parties may or may not do in certain situations. Other problems will lie in the penumbra of express statutory mandates. Some will lack express statutory sanction but will be solved by looking at the policy of the legislation and fashioning a remedy that will effectuate that policy. ”

“ The range of judicial inventiveness will be determined by the nature of the problem. * * * Federal interpretation of the federal law will govern, not state law. * * * But state law, if compatible with the purpose of § 301, may be resorted to in order to find the rule that will best effectuate the federal policy. * * * Any state law applied, however, will be absorbed as federal law and will not be an independent source of private rights.' 353 U.S., at 456-457, 77 S.Ct., at 917 918.
An action arising under § 301 is controlled by federal substantive law even though it is brought in a state court. ”

“ The eligibility of employees for promotion engendered disputes-allegedly subject to the grievance procedure-which so far as appears involved no violence or trespass but which resulted in work stoppages and a walkout by employees. The state court issued an ex parte injunction.
Respondent then moved in the Federal District Court for removal of the case. [1] A motion to remand to the state court was made and denied, the District Court ruling that the action was within its original jurisdiction. ”