source: Caselaw Access Project

author: Justice Rehnquist Justice Blackmun, Justice Stewart, Justice Stevens,

license: Public Domain

text:
    UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC. v. MITCHELL et al.
    No. 80-169.
    Argued February 24, 1981
    Decided April 20, 1981

      Rehnquist, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Burger, C. J., and Brennan, White, Marshall, Blackmun, and Powell, JJ., joined. Blackmun, J., filed a concurring opinion, post, p. 64. Stewart, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, post, p. 65. SteveNS, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, post, p. 71.

      Bernard G. Segal argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the briefs was James D. Crawford. Albert S. Par-sonnet filed a brief for Local 177, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, respondent under this Court’s Rule 19.6, in support of petitioner.

      David Jaroslawicz argued the cause for respondent Mitchell. With him on the brief was Ira Leitel.

      Briefs of amid curiae urging reversal were filed by J. Albert Woll, Laurence Gold, Michael H. Gottesman, and Robert M. Weinberg for the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations; and by David Previant for the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America.

   Justice Rehnquist

delivered the opinion of the Court.

We are called upon in this case to determine which state statute of limitations period should be borrowed and applied to an employee's action against his employer under § 301 (a) of the Labor Management Relations Act, 1947, 61 Stat. 156, 29 U. S. C. § 185 (a), and Hines v. Anchor Motor Freight, Inc., 424 U. S. 554 (1976).

I

Petitioner United Parcel Service, Inc. (UPS), employed respondent Mitchell (respondent), as a car washer at its facility on Staten Island, N. Y. On January 13, 1977, respondent was discharged for dishonest acts, including falsifying his timecards and claiming payment for hours which he did not work. Respondent denied the charges against him and requested his union, Department Store and Wholesale Drivers, Warehousemen and Helpers, Local Union No. 177 (the Union), to file a grievance on his behalf contesting the discharge. UPS and the Union were parties to a collective-bargaining agreement which provided a grievance and arbitration procedure for the resolution of disputes covered by the agreement. App. 57-67. Pursuant to the agreement respondent's grievance was submitted to a panel of the Atlantic Area Parcel Grievance Committee, composed of three union and three company representatives (the Joint Panel). Cf. Hines v. Anchor Motor Freight, Inc., supra, at 557, n. 2. The Joint Panel conducted a hearing, at which respondent was represented by the Union, and on February 16, 1977, it announced its decision that the discharge be upheld. App. 103-104. Under the collective-bargaining agreement this decision was “binding on all parties.'' Id., at 66; see id., at 103.

Seventeen months later, on July 20, 1978, respondent filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York against the Union and UPS under § 301 (a) of the Labor Management Relations Act, 29 U. S. C. § 185 (a). See Hines v. Anchor Motor Freight, Inc., supra. He alleged that the Union had breached its duty of fair representation and that UPS discharged him not for the stated reasons, which it knew to be false, but to achieve savings by replacing full-time employees with part-time employees. App. 7-13. Both UPS and the Union moved for summary judgment on the ground that the action was barred by New York’s 90-day statute of limitations for actions to vacate arbitration awards. Section 7511 (a) of the N. Y. Civ. Prac. Law (McKinney 1963) provides that “[a]n application to vacate or modify an [arbitration] award may be made by a party within ninety days after its delivery to him.”

The District Court granted summary judgment in favor of UPS and the Union, ruling that respondent’s action was properly characterized as one to vacate the arbitration award entered against him. The court reasoned: “The relief sought was expressly denied in an arbitration award issued as a result of a full-scale arbitration proceeding. The effect of any grant of the relief sought . . . would be to vacate the determination of the arbitrators.” App. 129. Respondent appealed and the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed. 624 F. 2d 394 (1980). That court held that the District Court should have applied New York’s 6-year limitations period for actions alleging breach of contract, N. Y. Civ. Prac. Law § 213 (2) (McKinney 1972). It reasoned that respondent’s action was analogous to a breach-of-contract action because the issues were whether the collective-bargaining agreement had been breached and whether the Union contributed to that breach by failure to discharge its duty of fair representation. The court further reasoned that a 6-year limitations period “provides for relatively rapid disposition of labor disputes without undermining an employee’s ability to vindicate his rights through § 301 actions.” 624 F. 2d, at 397-398.

We granted UPS’ petition for certiorari. 449 U. S. 898 (1980).

II

Congress has not enacted a statute of limitations governing actions brought pursuant to § 301 of the LMR.A. As this Court pointed out in Auto Workers v. Hoosier Cardinal Corp., 383 U. S. 696, 704-705 (1966), “the timeliness of a §301 suit ... is to be determined, as a matter of federal law, by reference to the appropriate state statute of limitations.” Our present task is to determine which limitations period is “the most appropriate one provided by state law.” Johnson v. Railway Express Agency, Inc., 421 U. S. 454, 462 (1975). This depends upon an examination of the nature of the federal claim and the federal policies involved. See Hoosier Cardinal, supra, at 706-707.

Although respondent did not style his suit as one to vacate the award of the Joint Panel, if he is successful the suit will have that direct effect. Respondent raises in his § 301 action the same claim that was raised before the Joint Panel— that he was discharged in violation of the collective-bargaining agreement. He seeks the same relief he sought before the Joint Panel — reinstatement with full backpay. In sum, “it is clear that [he] was dissatisfied with and simply seeks to upset the arbitrator’s decision that the company did not wrongfully discharge him.” Liotta v. National Forge Co., 629 F. 2d 903, 905-906 (CA3 1980), cert. pending, No. 80-890.

The Court of Appeals purported to rely on this Court’s decision in Hines v. Anchor Motor Freight, Inc., but that decision strongly supports borrowing the limitations period for actions to vacate arbitration awards. As Hines makes clear, an employee may go behind a final and binding award under a collective-bargaining agreement and seek relief against his employer and union only when he demonstrates that his union’s breach of its duty “seriously undermine [d] the integrity of the arbitral process.” 424 U. S., at 567. Hines rejected the suggestion that “erroneous arbitration decisions must stand” in the face of the union’s breach of its duty, id., at 571, suggesting that the suits it sanctioned are aptly characterized as ones to vacate such arbitration decisions. Indeed the present writer, though in dissent on the merits in Hines, characterized the action as one to “vacate an . . . arbitration award.” Id., at 575. See also Humphrey v. Moore, 375 U. S. 335, 336 (1964) (issue characterized as whether to enjoin implementation of decision of joint panel).

It is true that respondent’s underlying claim against his employer is based on the collective-bargaining agreement, a contract. It is not enough, however, for an employee such as respondent to prove that he was discharged in violation of the collective-bargaining agreement. “To prevail against either the company or-the Union, petitioners must not only show that their discharge was contrary to the contract but must also carry the burden of demonstrating breach of duty by the Union. . . . The grievance processes cannot be expected to be error-free.” Hines, 424 U. S., at 570-571. Thus respondent's characterization of his action against the employer as one for “breach of contract” ignores the significance of the fact that it was brought in the District Court pursuant to § 301 (a) of the LMRA and that the indispensable predicate for such an action is not a showing under traditional contract law that the discharge was a breach of the collective-bargaining agreement, but instead a demonstration that the Union breached its duty of fair representation. Since the conclusion of the Joint Panel was, under the collective-bargaining agreement, “binding on all parties,” respondent was required in some way to show that the Union’s duty to represent him fairly at the arbitration had been breached before he was entitled to reach the merits of his contract claim. This, in our view, makes the suit more analogous to an action to vacate an arbitration award than to a straight contract action.

We think that the unfair representation claim made by an employee against his union, even though his employer may ultimately be called upon to respond in damages for it if he is successful, is more a creature of “labor law” as it has developed since the enactment of § 301 than it is of general contract law. We said in Hoosier Cardinal that one of the leading federal policies in this area is the “relatively rapid disposition of labor disputes.” 383 U. S., at 707. Cf. 29 U. S. C. § 160 (b) (6-month period under NLRA). This policy was one of the reasons the Court in Hoosier Cardinal chose the generally shorter period for actions based on an oral contract rather than that for actions upon a written contract, 383 U. S., at 707, and similar analysis supports our adoption of the shorter period for actions to vacate an arbitration award in this case.

It is important to bear in mind the observations made in the Steelworkers Trilogy that “the grievance machinery under a collective bargaining agreement is at the very heart of the system of industrial self-government. . . . The processing . .. machinery is actually a vehicle by which meaning and content are given to the collective bargaining agreement.” Steelworkers v. Warrior & Culf Navigation Co., 363 U. S. 574, 581 (1960). Although the present case involves a fairly mundane and discrete wrongful-discharge complaint, the grievance and arbitration procedure often processes disputes involving interpretation of critical terms in the collective-bargaining agreement affecting the entire relationship between company and union. See, e. g., Humphrey v. Moore, supra (seniority rights of all employees). This system, with its heavy emphasis on grievance, arbitration, and the “law of the shop,” could easily become unworkable if a decision which has given “meaning and content” to the terms of an agreement, and even affected subsequent modifications of the agreement, could suddenly be called into question as much as six years later.

Obviously, if New York had adopted a specific 6-year statute of limitations for employee challenges to awards of a joint panel or similar body, we would be bound to apply that statute under the reasoning of Hoosier Cardinal. But in cases such as this, where generally state limitations periods were enacted prior to the enactment of § 301 by Congress in 1947, we are necessarily committed by prior decisional law to choosing among statutes of limitations none of which fit hand in glove with an action under § 301 (a) of the LMRA. Given the choices present here, and the undesirability of the results of the grievance and arbitral process being suspended in limbo for long periods, we think the District Court was correct when it chose the 90-day period imposed by New York for the bringing of an action to vacate an arbitration award.

Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is

Reversed.

Justice Blackmun,

concurring.

I join the Court’s opinion because I am persuaded that the Court has made the correct choice between the two state-law alternatives presented by the parties. As the Court observes, the applicability of § 10 (b) of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U. S. C. § 160 (b), was never pressed by either party, and was not considered by the Court of Appeals. Although I find much that is persuasive in Justice Stewart’s analysis, resolution of the § 10 (b) question properly should await the development of a full adversarial record.

Justice Stewart,

concurring in the judgment.

The Court believes itself obligated by Auto Workers v. Hoosier Cardinal Corp., 383 U. S. 696, to determine the applicable statute of limitations in this case “as a matter of federal law, by reference to the appropriate state statute of limitations.” I do not believe, however, that we are so constrained by Hoosier. Instead of deciding which of two almost equally relevant state limitations periods applies to the respondent employee’s claims, I would impose the limitations period of § 10 (b) of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), 29 U. S. C. § 160 (b).

A

Hoosier involved a straightforward breach-of-contract damages suit brought by a union against an employer under § 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA). As Congress had not provided a limitations period for § 301 suits, the Court concluded that a state statute of limitations should apply. But the Court was careful to note that it was not deciding the appropriate time limits for all suits brought under § 301:

“The present suit is essentially an action for damages caused by an alleged breach of an employer’s obligation embodied in a collective bargaining agreement. Such an action closely resembles an action for breach of contract cognizable at common law. Whether other § 301 suits different from the present one might call for the application of other rules on timeliness, we are not required to decide, and we indicate no view whatsoever on that question.” 383 U. S., at 705, n. 7.

The Court also observed, in response to the claim that reliance on varying state limitations statutes was contrary to the national interest in uniformity in industrial relations, that the kind of contract dispute it had before it did not implicate “those consensual processes that federal labor law is chiefly designed to promote — the formation of the . . . agreement and the private settlement of disputes under it.” Id., at 702 (emphasis added).

The case before us is quite unlike the one in Hoosier. It is a hybrid “§ 301 and breach of duty sui[t],” Vaca v. Sipes, 386 U. S. 171, 197, n. 18, brought by an employee against both his employer and his union in order to set aside a “final and binding” determination of a grievance, arrived at through the collectively bargained method of resolving the grievance. It is, therefore, a direct challenge to “the private settlement of disputes under [the collective-bargaining agreement].”

Moreover, unlike Hoosier, where the employee’s complaint was rooted solely in § 301 of the LMRA, the respondent employee here has two claims, each with its own discrete jurisdictional base. The- contract claim against the employer is based on § 301, but the duty of fair representation is derived from the NLRA. Yet the two claims are inextricably interdependent. “To prevail against either the company or the Union, . . . [employee-plaintiffs] must not only show that their discharge was contrary to the contract but must also carry the burden of demonstrating breach of duty by the Union.” Hines v. Anchor Motor Freight, Inc., 424 U. S. 554, 570-571. Accordingly, a plaintiff must prevail upon his unfair representation claim before he may even litigate the merits of his § 301 claim against the employer.

Thus, the suit in this case, unlike the one in Hoosier, cannot be likened to “an action for breach of contract cognizable at common law.” 383 U. S., at 705, n. 7. Instead, it is an amalgam of § 301, which has no limitations period, and the NLRA. And, of course, the latter contains a limitations provision. Although § 10 (b) of the NLRA was designed to limit the initiation of unfair labor practice claims in order to safeguard the stability of collective-bargaining agreements, the policy behind it applies with equal force in this context.

B

Congress enacted § 10 (b) of the NLRA to protect continuing collective-bargaining systems from delayed attack. The 6-month bar of § 10 (b) is designed to strengthen and defend the “stability of bargaining relationships.” Machinists v. NLRB, 362 U. S. 411, 425. The time limitation reflects the balance drawn by Congress, “the expositor of the national interest,” id., at 429, between the interests of employees in redressing grievances and “vindicating] [their] statutory rights,” ibid., and the “interest in 'industrial peace which it is the overall purpose of the Act to secure.’ ” Id., at 428 (quoting NLRB v. Childs Co., 195 F. 2d 617, 621-622 (CA2) (L. Hand, concurring)).

Of course, one aspect of the respondent employee’s claim in this case is predicated on § 301 of the LMRA; if the plaintiff can establish his claim for breach of the duty of fair representation, he may then pursue his § 301 breach-of-contract claim. But here, unlike Hoosier, the latter action, like the breach-of-duty claim, is a challenge to a result reached in the contractual grievance resolution system. Accordingly, the policy of promoting stability in collective bargaining underlying the time bar of § 10 (b) is applicable to this aspect of the respondent employee’s case as well.

In any event, the two elements of respondent employee’s hybrid action cannot be disentangled: the duty of fair representation is “part and parcel of [the] §301 [claim].” Vaca v. Sipes, 386 U. S., at 186. When the 6-month period of § 10 (b) has passed, the employee should no longer be able to challenge the alleged breach of duty by his union, and as this is a precondition for maintaining the contract action, he should not be able to challenge the employer’s action either.

Finally, even if it were appropriate to view the respondent employee’s suit in this case as founded solely on § 301, the Court is not obliged to apply a state statute of limitations. As already noted, Hoosier contemplated that “other § 301 suits' different from the present one might call for application of other rules of timeliness.” 383 U. S., at 705, n. 7. And the Court has indicated, in a more general context, that state limitations periods will not be applied when their employment would be inconsistent with national policy:

“[T]he Court has not mechanically applied a state statute of limitations simply because a limitations period is absent from the federal statute. State legislatures do not devise their limitations periods with national interests in mind, and it is the duty of the federal courts to assure that the importation of state law will not frustrate or interfere with the implementation of national policies. . . . State limitations periods will not be borrowed if their application would be inconsistent with the underlying policies of the federal statute.” Occidental Life Ins. Co. v. EEOC, 432 U. S. 355, 367.

In § 10 (b) of the NLRA, Congress established a limitations period attuned to what it viewed as the proper balance between the national interests in stable bargaining relationships and finality of private settlements, and an employee’s interest in setting aside what he views as an unjust settlement under the collective-bargaining system. That is precisely the balance at issue in this case. The employee’s interest in setting aside the “final and binding” determination of a grievance through the method established by the collective-bargaining agreement unquestionably implicates “those consensual processes that federal labor law is chiefly designed to promote — the formation of the . . . agreement and the private settlement of disputes under it.” Hoosier, 383 U. S., at 702. Accordingly, “[t]he need for uniformity” among procedures followed for similar claims, ibid., as well as the clear congressional indication of the proper balance between the interests at stake, counsels the adoption of § 10 (b) of the NLRA as the appropriate limitations period for lawsuits such as this.

C

Because the respondent employee commenced his suit beyond the 6-month bar of § 10 (b) of the NLRA, I agree that the judgment of the Court of Appeals must be reversed.

Justice Stevens,

concurring in part and dissenting in part.

In this action, the plaintiff-employee seeks a judicial remedy against his former employer for wrongful discharge, and against his union for breach of the duty of fair representation. The District Court granted summary judgment in favor of both defendants because of the employee’s failure to file suit within what that court viewed as the appropriate period of limitations. The Court of Appeals reversed the District Court’s judgment as to both claims and remanded for further proceedings. The employer alone sought further review in this Court. Therefore, at this stage of the litigation, the only question properly presented for our consideration is whether the Court of Appeals chose the most appropriate New York statute of limitations to govern the employee’s claim against his former employer for wrongful discharge. Although I agree for the most part with the Court's resolution of that question, I fear that its failure expressly to limit its reasoning to the narrow question presented in this case may suggest that today’s decision also resolves the question whether the same statute of limitations governs the employee’s claim against the union for breach of the duty of fair representation. That interpretation, although understandable in light of the broad language of the Court’s opinion, would be inconsistent with the procedural posture of this case and, in addition, would be conceptually unsound.

I concur in the Court’s conclusion that it is appropriate, for purposes of federal labor law, to characterize the employee’s suit against his employer as an action to set aside an arbitration award. In the arbitration proceeding that took place prior to this litigation, the employer prevailed on the precise claim respondent raises against it in this judicial proceeding — that the discharge violated the collective-bargaining agreement. If the employee now were to prevail against the employer on this claim, the necessary effect of the resulting court order would be to undo the arbitration award. See ante, at 61. Accordingly, in upholding the employer’s position, the Court properly emphasizes the importance of the finality and certainty of arbitration in the collective-bargaining context, and properly treats the adverse arbitration decision as a substantial obstacle to the employee’s pursuit of judicial relief against his employer.

The employee’s claim against his union for breach of the duty of fair representation, however, is of a far different character. Although this claim is closely related to the claim against the employer, the two claims are nonetheless conceptually distinct. The claim against the union may not, in my judgment, be characterized as an action to vacate an arbitration award. The arbitration proceeding did not, and indeed, could not, resolve the employee's claim against the union. Although the union was a party to the arbitration, it acted only as the employee’s representative; the Joint Panel did not address or resolve any dispute between the employee and the union. Therefore, with respect to the employee’s action against the union, the finality and certainty of arbitration are not threatened by the prospect that the employee might prevail on his judicial claim. Because no arbitrator has decided the primary issue presented by this claim, no arbitration award need be undone, even if the employee ultimately prevails.

The employee’s claim against his union is properly characterized, not as an action to vacate an arbitration award, but rather as a malpractice claim. There is no conceptual reason why that claim may not survive even if the employer is able to rely on the arbitration award as a conclusive determination of its obligations under the collective-bargaining agreement. Thus, by analogy, a lawyer who negligently allows the statute of limitations to run on his client’s valid claim may be liable to his client even though the original defendant no longer has any exposure. Cf. Smart v. Ellis Trucking Co., 580 F. 2d 215, 218-219 (CA6 1978), cert. denied, 440 U. S. 958.

In this case, I agree with the Court that the statute of limitations applicable to respondent’s claim against his former employer is the 90-day statute governing actions to vacate or modify arbitration awards in New York. It surely does not follow, however, that that statute is applicable to the claim against the union for breach of its duty of fair representation. Because the union did not seek review of the judgment of the Court of Appeals, it is not appropriate to decide what period of limitations should be applied to the employee’s claim against it. It is, however, noteworthy that Justice Stewart’s proposal that we strain to conclude that Congress intended that § 10 (b) of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U. S. C. § 160 (b), be applied to causes of action that this Court had not yet divined when § 10 (b) was enacted, cf. Watt v. Alaska, post, p. 276 (Stewart, J., dissenting), rests on a rationale that might apply to a § 301 claim against the union, but which is wholly inapplicable to the claim against the employer, because the employer is not accused of any unfair labor practice.

In sum, I concur in the Court’s judgment insofar as it pertains to the employee’s action against his employer.

       A direct conflict in the Circuits developed when the Third Circuit, confronted with the present question, borrowed the 3-month period contained in Pennsylvania's arbitration statute, reversing a District Court decision borrowing the State’s 6-year period for actions upon a contract. Liotta v. National Forge Co., 629 F. 2d 903 (1980), cert. pending, No. 80-890.

         Amicus the American Federation of Labor and Congress of'Industrial Organizations has filed a brief arguing that, in cases such as the present, courts should apply the 6-month limitations period found in § 10 (b) of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U. S. C. § 160 (b). The AFL-CIO distinguishes the above-quoted language from Hoosier Cardinal on the ground that Hoosier Cardinal involved a § 301 action by a union against an employer, while actions brought by employees against both their union and employer pursuant to our decisions in Vaca v. Sipes, 386 U. S. 171 (1967), and Hines v. Anchor Motor Freight, Inc., 424 U. S. 554 (1976), are hybrid § 301 breach-of-duty actions, the union’s duty being implied from the NLRA. We decline to consider this argument since it was not raised by either of the parties here or below. See Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U. S. 520, 532, n. 13 (1979); Knetsch v. United States, 364 U. S. 361, 370 (1960). Our grant of certiorari was to consider which state limitations period should be borrowed, not whether such borrowing was appropriate. See Pet. for Cert. i. The parties have considered the question as being limited to which state limitations period to borrow. See, e. g., Brief for Petitioner 8; Brief for Respondent 11. Since respondent filed his complaint beyond the 6-month period, the same result would obtain in this case were we to adopt the AFL-CIO’s position.

       The Court of Appeals declined to borrow the limitations period for actions to vacate an arbitration award in part because of its view that discharged employees could not institute such actions under New York law, see In re Soto, 7 N. Y. 2d 397, 165 N. E. 2d 855 (1960). 624 F. 2d 394, 398 (1980). The fact that an employee could not bring a direct suit to vacate an arbitration award, however, does not mean that his § 301 claim, which if successful would have the same effect, is not “closely analogous” to such an action. See Johnson v. Railway Express Agency, Inc., 421 U. S. 454, 464 (1975).

         Respondent suggests Hines actions might also be characterized as actions upon a statute, personal injury actions, or malpractice actions, all governed by a 3-year limitations period in New York, N. Y. Civ. Prac. Law §§214(2), 214(5), 214(6) (McKinney 1972). All of these characterizations suffer from the same flaw as the effort to characterize the action as one for breach of contract: they overlook the fact that an arbitration award stands between the employee and any relief which may be awarded against the company.

       New York is typical in providing a relatively short limitations period for actions to vacate arbitration awards. Cf. 42 States with specific limitations periods for such actions, 28 have a period of 90 days, 9 have shorter periods, 2 longer, and 3 States have periods based on the term of court. See App. to Pet. for Cert. A18-A19. The Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U. S. C. § 12, provides a limitations period of three months.
      The particular choice made in Hoosier Cardinal to borrow the limitations period for oral contracts is not binding in this case, not only because the issue in Hoosier Cardinal was between a 6-year period for oral contracts and a 20-year period for written contracts, but also because the claim in Hoosier Cardinal was not one to overturn an arbitration award.

       But see ante, at 60, n. 2.

       The Court has recognized on numerous occasions that “[t]he duty of fair representation is . . . implicit in the National Labor Relations Act.” See, e. g., Electrical Workers v. Foust, 442 U. S. 42, 46, n. 8. The Court first recognized the statutory duty of fair representation in Steele v. Louisville & Nashville R. Co., 323 U. S. 192, a case arising under the Railway Labor Act, but in a series of decisions beginning with Ford Motor Co. v. Huffman, 345 U. S. 330, the Court concluded that the duty of fair representation applies equally to the NLRA. The Court explained the derivation of the principle in Hines v. Anchor Motor Freight, Inc., 424 U. S. 554, 563-564:
      “Necessarily '[a] wide range of reasonableness must be allowed a statutory bargaining representative in serving the unit it represents . . . Ford Motor Co. v. Huffman, 345 U. S. 330, 338 (1953). The union’s broad authority in negotiating and administering effective agreements is 'undoubted/ Humphrey v. Moore, 375 U. S. 335, 342 (1964), but it is not without limits. Because ([t]he collective bargaining system as encouraged by Congress and administered by the NLRB of necessity subordinates the interests of an individual employee to the collective interests of all employees in a bargaining unit,' Vaca v. Sipes, 386 U. S. 171, 182 (1967), the controlling statutes have long been interpreted as imposing upon the bargaining agent a responsibility equal in scope to its authority, 'the responsibility and duty of fair representation.’ Humphrey v. Moore, supra, at 342. The union as the statutory representative of the employees is 'subject always to complete good faith and honesty of purpose in the exercise of its discretion.’ Ford Motor Co. v. Huffman, supra, at 338.”
      That this duty of fair representation under the NLRA may be judicially enforced was made clear in Vaca v. Sipes, 386 U. S. 171.

       This Court has not decided whether all breaches of the duty of fair representation necessarily constitute unfair -labor practices under §§ 8 (b) (1) (A) and (b) (2) of the NLRA. In Miranda Fuel Co., 140 N. L. R. B. 181, the Board ruled that all violations of the duty of fair representation are unfair labor practices either under § 8 (b) (2) or under § 8 (b) (1) (A). In Vaca v. Sipes, supra, the Court found it unnecessary to decide whether Miranda Fuel was correctly decided, but simply ''assume[d] for present purposes” that the Board had been correct. 386 U. S., at 186. The three concurring Justices in Vaca v. Sipes, however, stated that “a complaint by an employee that the union has breached its duty of fair representation ... is a charge of unfair labor practice.” Id., at 198. And a majority of the Courts of Appeals have concluded that breach of the fair representation duty is an unfair labor practice. See Newport News Shipbuilding Co. v. NLRB, 631 F. 2d 263 (CA4); Abilene Sheet Metal, Inc. v. NLRB, 619 F. 2d 332, 347 (CA5); NLRB v. American Postal Workers Union, 618 F. 2d 1249, 1254-1255 (CA8); Kesner v. NLRB, 532 F. 2d 1169, 1173-1174 (CA7); Kling v. NLRB, 503 F. 2d 1044 (CA9); Truck Drivers v. NLRB, 126 U. S. App. D. C. 360, 379 F. 2d 137; cf. Denver Stereotypers v. NLRB, 623 F. 2d 134, 136 (CA10). But see NLRB v. Miranda Fuel Co., 326 F. 2d 172, 175-178 (CA2) (Judge Medina took the position that the Board had incorrectly held violation of the duty of fair representation to be an unfair labor practice; Judge Lumbard, concurring, did not reach that question; Judge Friendly dissented). Even if there are some breaches of the representation duty that are not unfair labor practices under the NLRA, § 10 (b) is, I believe, the proper source for determining when claims of breach of duty must be raised. For that limitations period is a clear indication of Congress’ judgment of when claims of a very similar or identical character must be brought.

       Concededly, the terms of § 10 (b) are directed to the administrative procedures provided by Congress to resolve unfair labor practices. But the fact that Congress did not provide a limitations period for a judicially enforceable action later found implied in the NLRA is not comparable to a congressional failure to establish a time limitation for an action it expressly creates by statute. Cf. Occidental Life Ins. Co. v. EEOC, 432 U. S. 355, 367. In any case, it cannot reasonably be assumed here that congressional silence reflects an intent to apply state statutes of limitation for an action based in part on rights and obligations traceable to the NLRA.

       The charge by the employees in Machinists was against the formation of a collective-bargaining agreement. Here the complaint is with the agreement’s administration. But § 8 (d) of the NLRA defines the collective bargaining required by the Act to include grievance procedures as a part of the continuing collective-bargaining process. See NLRB v. Acme Industrial Co., 385 U. S. 432, 436; 29 U. S. C. § 158 (d).

       The Court held in Machinists v. NLRB, 362 U. S. 411, 422, that “a finding of violation which is inescapably grounded on events predating the limitations period is directly at odds with the purposes of the § 10 (b) [time limit].”

       The need for speedy and final resolution of labor disputes, preferably without recourse to the courts — identified by the Court today in support of its preference for the shorter of the possible state limitations periods, ante, at 63, 64 — also supports adoption of the relatively short period of § 10(b).

       The union did not petition for review of the Court of Appeals’ decision, and the employer has not taken a position with respect to which statute of limitations governs the employee’s claim against the union. Indeed, the employer has vigorously denied that this question is presented in this case:
      “[T]he only question raised in the petition for certiorari is the statute of limitations applicable to Mitchell’s claim against his employer, UPS. See Liotta v. National Forge Co., 629 F. 2d 903 (3d Cir.1980).
      “The fact that Mitchell may have a claim against the Union does not affect the determination of which statute of limitations governs his claim against his employer. See Liotta v. National Forge Co., supra, 629 F. 2d at 905.” Reply Brief for Petitioner 3, 4.
      See also Id,, at 5-6.

       The claims are closely related because, to prevail against the employer, the employee must establish that the union breached its duty of fair representation and that the employer breached the collective-bargaining agreement; similarly, to prevail against the union, the employee must prove that the union breached its duty of fair representation and, if he wishes to recover loss-of-employment damages for which the union is responsible, that the employer breached the agreement. See n. 4, infra. Cf. Czosek v. O’Mara, 397 U. S. 25, 28-29. However, despite this close relationship, the two claims are not inseparable. Indeed, although the employee in this case chose to sue both the employer and the union, he was not required to do so; he was free to institute suit against either one as the sole defendant. See Vaca v. Sipes, 386 U. S. 171, 186-187.

       By its very nature, the employee’s claim that the union breached its duty of fair representation cannot be resolved in an arbitration proceeding because it arises out of the conduct of that proceeding itself.

         While an arbitration decision favorable to the employer — for example, that the discharge did not breach the collective-bargaining agreement— would be of substantial significance in an employee’s suit against his union, it would not necessarily be dispositive. The determination whether the employer breached the agreement may be highly relevant to the amount of damages caused by the union’s alleged breach of duty, but it is not necessarily controlling with respect to the threshold question whether there was any breach of duty by the union at all. For example, if, solely for reasons of racial bias, a union processes a discharged employee’s griev-anee in bad faith, the union breaches its duty of fair representation. Cf. Steele v. Louisville & Nashville R. Co., 323 U. S. 192. The fact that the underlying discharge may not have violated the collective-bargaining agreement does not necessarily absolve the union of liability for its breach, although it may limit the size of the employee’s recovery against the union. Thus, while a court considering an employee’s claim against a union will evaluate the validity of the employer’s underlying conduct, that evaluation is not central to the resolution of the duty-of-fair-representation claim.

       In Liotta v. National Forge Co., 629 F. 2d 903 (CA3 1980), cert. pending, No. 80-890, the Court of Appeals concluded that the Pennsylvania statute of limitations governing actions to vacate arbitration awards should apply to an employee’s § 301 action against his employer for wrongful discharge. However, in Liotta the employee had filed suit only against his employer, and not against his union. The Court of Appeals suggested that this fact was of some significance in determining which statute of limitations to apply:
      “[T]he fact that Liotta alleges that the arbitration award is invalid due to the Union’s breach of its duty of fair representation does not change the limitations period because the suit here is against the Company and not the Union. Thus, it is clear that Liotta was dissatisfied with and simply seeks to upset the arbitrator’s decision that the Company did not wrongfully discharge him.” 629 F. 2d, at 905-906.

       N. Y. Civ. Prac. Law § 7511 (a) (McKinney 1963), quoted ante, at 59. I do not address any question concerning the possible tolling of that period, because no such issue is presented in this case.

       Under the rationale of Auto Workers v. Hoosier Cardinal Corp., 383 U. S. 696, 704-705, arguably the proper statute of limitations to apply to such a claim would be N. Y. Civ. Prac. Law § 214 (6) (McKinney 1972), which governs claims for nonmedical malpractice. Because the question of the appropriate statute of limitations to apply to the employee’s claim against his union is not properly presented in this case, I express no definite opinion on the point. I note, however, that the Court dismisses the suggestion that this action may be characterized as a malpractice action with the observation that this characterization “overlook [s] the fact that an arbitration award stands between the employee and any relief which may be awarded against the company.” Ante, at 63, n. 4 (emphasis supplied). Because no arbitration award stands between the employee and any relief which may be awarded against the union, this observation is inapplicable to the claim against the union.

       Section 10 (b) of the National Labor Relations Act provides:
      “Whenever it is charged that any person has engaged in or is engaging in any such unfair labor practice, the [National Labor Relations] Board, or any agent or agency designated by the Board for such purposes, shall have power to issue and cause to be served upon such person a complaint stating the charges in that respect, and containing a notice of hearing before the Board or a member thereof, or before a designated agent or agency, at a place therein fixed, not less than five days after the serving of said complaint: Provided, That no complaint shall issue based upon any unfair labor practice occurring more than six months prior to the filing of the charge with the Board and the service of a copy thereof upon the person against whom such charge is made, unless the person aggrieved thereby was prevented from filing such charge by reason of service in the armed forces, in which event the six-month period shall be computed from the day of his discharge. Any such complaint may be amended by the member, agent, or agency conducting the hearing or the Board in its discretion at any time prior to the issuance of an order based thereon. The person so complained of shall have the right to file an answer to the original or amended complaint and to appear in person or otherwise and give testimony at the place and time fixed in the complaint. In the discretion of the member, agent, or agency conducting the hearing or the Board, any other person may be allowed to intervene in the said proceeding and to present testimony. Any such proceeding shall, so far as practicable, be conducted in accordance with the rules of evidence applicable in the district courts of the United States under the rules of civil procedure for the district courts of the United States, adopted by the Supreme Court of the United States pursuant to section 2072 of title 28.” 29 U. S. C. §160 (b).
      The plain language of this statute indicates that it is directed solely to the administrative procedure established by Congress in the National Labor Relations Act for the resolution of unfair labor practice charges arising under, and processed in accordance with, that Act. Nothing in the statutory language suggests that Congress intended that this 6-month limitations period be applied in any other context.

       The National Labor Relations Act was enacted in 1935. 49 Stat. 449. Although § 10 (b) was a part of the Act at that time, in its original form it did not contain a period of limitations. 49 Stat. 453-454. The 6-month limitations period upon which Justice Stewart relies was added to § 10 (b) in 1947. 61 Stat. 146. Six years later, the Court decided the first in a series of cases recognizing that the National Labor Relations Act imposes a duty of fair representation upon unions. See Ford Motor Co. v. Huffman, 345 U. S. 330. In 1967, in Vaca v. Sipes, 386 U. S. 171, the Court clearly held that this duty may be judicially enforced. See generally Hines v. Anchor Motor Freight, Inc., 424 U. S. 554, 563-567.


author: Justice Stevens

text:
    NORTHWEST AIRLINES, INC. v. TRANSPORT WORKERS UNION OF AMERICA, AFL-CIO, et al.
    No. 79-1056.
    Argued December 2, 1980
    Decided April 20, 1981

      SteveNS, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which all other Members joined, except BlackmuN, J., who took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.

      Philip A. Lacovara argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the briefs were Jay Kelly Wright and Gerald Goldman.

      Stephen B. Moldo j argued the cause for respondents and filed a brief for respondent Air Line Pilots Association, International. Asher W. Swartz filed a brief for respondent Transport Workers Union of America, AFL-CIO.

      Deputy Solicitor General Wallace argued the cause for the United States et al. as amici curiae. With him on the brief were Solicitor General McCree, Harlon L. Dalton, and Leroy D. Clark.

        J. Albert Woll, Laurence Gold, John Fillion, and George Kaufmann filed a brief for the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations et al. as amici curiae urging affirmance.
      Briefs of amici curiae were filed by Herbert Prashker, Peyton H. Moss,
        and Eric D. Within for Trans World Airlines, Inc.; by Winn I. Newman, Carole Wilson, Richard B. Sobol, and Michael B. Trister for the International Union of Electrical, Radio, and Machine Workers, AFL-CIO; and by Michael H. Gottesman and Robert M. Weinberg for Mary P. Laffey et al.

   Justice Stevens

delivered the opinion of the Court.

The question presented in this case is whether an employer held liable to its female employees for backpay because collectively bargained wage differentials were found to violate the Equal Pay Act of 1963 and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 has a federal statutory or common-law right to contribution from unions that allegedly bear at least partial responsibility for the statutory violations.

The relevant facts are alleged in the complaint filed by the petitioner, Northwest Airlines, Inc., against the respondent unions, the Transport Workers Union of America (TWU) and the Air Line Pilots Association, International (ALPA), in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. Continuously from 1947 through 1974, petitioner paid higher wages to its-male cabin attendants, who were classified as pursers, than to its female cabin attendants, who were classified as stewardesses. During that period, both the male and the female cabin attendants were represented by a union — TWU from 1961 to 1971 and ALPA thereafter — and their wages were fixed by collective-bargaining agreements negotiated and executed in response to union demands.

In 1970, Mary Laffey, a female cabin attendant employed by petitioner, commenced a class action against petitioner challenging the legality of the wage differential between pursers and stewardesses. On November 12, 1973, after a full trial, the District Court issued an opinion in which it found that the two positions required equal skill, effort, and responsibility, and were performed under similar working conditions. Accordingly, the court held that petitioner had violated the Equal Pay Act and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and entered judgment in favor of the plaintiff class. Laffey v. Northwest Airlines, Inc., 366 F. Supp. 763 (1973). Unless that judgment is reversed or modified, petitioner will be required to pay in excess of $20 million in back-pay, damages, and interest to the members of the Laffey plaintiff class.

After the entry of judgment against it, petitioner filed appropriate motions in the Laffey case asserting claims for contribution and indemnification against TWU and ALPA. Those motions were denied as untimely, and the Court of Appeals affirmed this ruling. Laffey v. Northwest Airlines, Inc., 185 U. S. App. D. C. 322, 369-370, 567 F. 2d 429, 476-478. Promptly thereafter, petitioner commenced this separate action. The complaint prayed that each union be adjudged liable to pay a proportion of any monetary liability finally assessed against petitioner in the Laffey litigation. The unions moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.

As the District Court interpreted the pleadings, petitioner contended that it had an implied cause of action against the unions under the Equal Pay Act for causing it to discriminate against the Laffey class, or, in the alternative, a federal common-law right to contribution from the unions for a share of its Equal Pay Act monetary liability. Petitioner’s claim for reimbursement for its Title VII monetary liability was based solely on a federal common-law right to contribution. App. to Pet. for Cert. 2b-3b. The District Court held that because the Equal Pay Act clearly was not enacted for the special benefit of employers, petitioner could not rely upon, an implied private cause of action for contribution under that statute. The court also concluded that the Act did not afford employees any express or implied right of action against their unions; because it found that unions and employers do not share common liability to employees under the Equal Pay Act, the District Court held that there is no federal common-law right to contribution for liability under that statute.

The District Court reached a different conclusion with respect to the claim for contribution for petitioner’s Title YII monetary liability. It found that the allegations of the complaint satisfied the two principal elements of a common-law right to contribution: (1) common liability and (2) the party seeking contribution has been required to pay more than its just share of the award. Id., at 10b. The court answered what it described as the “more difficult question” whether there is a right to contribution under federal law by noting a modern trend of federal-court decisions favoring contribution, and by finding that the policy of the statute would be served by allowing contribution. Assuming, without deciding, that contribution might be denied for an intentional wrong, the court denied the unions’ motions to dismiss, holding “only that there is a federal common law right to contribution for monetary liability imposed under Title VII, at least under some circumstances, and it will reach the questions as to the precise parameters of this right when the pertinent facts have been developed and properly placed before the Court.” Id., at 18b.

The unions took an interlocutory appeal from the Title VII holding, and petitioner appealed the Equal Pay Act holding. The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of the claim for contribution based on petitioner’s liability under the Equal Pay Act, reasoning that such a claim would be inconsistent with the statutory- scheme prescribing three, and only three, modes of enforcement. However, the Court of Appeals declined to reach the Title VII issue. Noting that on appeal the unions had asserted for the first time that petitioner’s Title VII contribution claim was barred by laches, the court remanded to the District Court with instructions to determine the laches question, explaining that it might thereby become unnecessary to decide the hard question concerning contribution for Title VII liability. 196 U. S. App. D. C. 443, 449, 606 F. 2d 1350,1356 (1979).

Unlike the Court of Appeals, we think the basic legal questions raised by the motions to dismiss petitioner’s contribution claims are ripe for decision. The importance of these questions led us to grant certiorari. 447 U. S. 920.

I

We first put to one side certain questions that we need not address. We shall then discuss the two quite different theories that might support petitioner’s claimed right to contribution.

At common law there was no right to contribution among joint tortfeasors. In most American jurisdictions, however, that rule has been changed either by statute or by judicial decision. Typically, a right to contribution is recognized when two or more persons are liable to the same plaintiff for the same injury and one of the joint tortfeasors has paid more than his fair share of the common liability. Recognition of the right reflects the view that when two or more persons share responsibility for a wrong, it is inequitable to require one to pay the entire cost of reparation, and it is sound policy to deter all wrongdoers by reducing the likelihood that any will entirely escape liability.

In this case, we assume that all of the elements of a typical contribution claim are established. This means that we assume that the plaintiffs in the Laffey litigation could have recovered from either the union or the employer, under both the Equal Pay Act and Title VII, and that it is unfair to require petitioner to pay the entire judgment. Furthermore, although the adversaries disagree with respect to whether recognition of a right to contribution would undermine or advance the policies of the Equal Pay Act and Title VII— and, indeed, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has staunchly argued both sides of that policy question at different stages of this litigation. — we assume that the policy considerations favor the recognition of the right. And, as argued by petitioner, we assume that the respondent unions in this case, as well as other unions in other industries, bear significant responsibility for discriminatory practices that these statutes were designed to prohibit. Finally, we assume that there are circumstances in which an employer may be a “person aggrieved” by union conduct that would be remediable after a timely charge is filed against the union under § 706 (b) of Title VII, 42 U. S. C. § 2000e-5 (b) . None of these assumptions, however, provides a sufficient basis for recognizing the right petitioner is asserting in this proceeding.

That right may have been created in either of two ways. First, it may have been created by statute when Congress enacted the Equal Pay Act or Title VII. Even though Congress did not expressly create a contribution remedy, if its intent to do so may fairly be inferred from either or both statutes, an implied cause of action for contribution could be recognized on the basis of the analysis used in cases such as Cort v. Ash, 422 U. S. 66, Cannon v. University of Chicago, 441 U. S. 677, and Universities Research Assn., Inc. v. Coutu, 450 U. S. 754. Second, a cause of action for contribution may have become a part of the federal common law through the exercise of judicial power to fashion appropriate remedies for unlawful conduct. See, e. g., Kohr v. Allegheny Airlines, Inc., 504 F. 2d 400 (CA7 1974), cert., denied, 421 U. S. 978. For somewhat different reasons, we reject both theories.

II

In determining whether a federal statute that does not expressly provide for a particular private right of action nonetheless implicitly created that right, our task is one of statutory construction. See Touche Ross & Co. v. Redington, 442 U. S. 560, 568. The ultimate question in cases such as this is whether Congress intended to create the private remedy— for example, a right to contribution — that the plaintiff seeks to invoke. See Transamerica Mortgage Advisors, Inc. v. Lewis, 444 U. S. 11, 15-16; Universities Research Assn., Inc., supra, at 770. Factors relevant to this inquiry are the language of the statute itself, its legislative history, the underlying purpose and structure of the statutory scheme, and the likelihood that Congress intended to supersede or to supplement existing state remedies. See Cort v. Ash, supra, at 78; Cannon, supra, at 689-709.

In matters of statutory construction, it is appropriate to begin with the language of the statute itself. See Touche Ross & Co., supra, at 568; Reiter v. Sonotone Corp., 442 U. S. 330, 337. Neither the Equal Pay Act nor Title VII expressly creates a right to contribution in favor of employers. This omission, although significant, is not dispositive if, among other things, the language of the statutes indicates that they were enacted for the special benefit of a class of which petitioner is a member. See Cannon, supra, at 689. However, as the District Court correctly perceived, it cannot possibly be said that employers are members of the class for whose especial benefit either the Equal Pay Act or Title VII was enacted. App. to Pet. for Cert. 5b. To the contrary, both statutes are expressly directed against employers; Congress intended in these statutes to regulate their conduct for the benefit of employees. In light of this fact, petitioner “can scarcely lay claim to the status of ‘beneficiary’ whom Congress considered in need of protection.” Piper v. Chris-Craft Industries, Inc., 430 U. S. 1, 37.

Even if we focus upon the isolated provisions in each statute that arguably were intended to provide special protection for employers, the same result follows. For those provisions, construed most favorably to petitioner, could at most provide a basis for implying a remedy for harm to an employer caused by union wrongdoing. Such a remedy for a violation of the employer’s rights would be entirely different from a right to compel the union to share the responsibility for a joint violation of a third party’s rights. Clearly, the language of neither statute supports implication of a right to contribution in favor of employers against unions.

The structure of the statutes similarly counsels against recognition of the implied right petitioner advocates in this case. The Equal Pay Act and Title YII establish comprehensive programs designed to eliminate certain varieties of employment discrimination. The statutes make express provision for private enforcement in certain carefully defined circumstances, and provide for enforcement at the instance of the Federal Government in other circumstances. The comprehensive character of the remedial scheme expressly fashioned by Congress strongly evidences an intent not to authorize additional remedies. It is, of course, not within our competence as federal judges to amend these comprehensive enforcement schemes by adding to them another private remedy not authorized by Congress.

Finally, we conclude that the legislative histories of the Equal Pay Act and Title VII provide no support for petitioner’s position. As the parties recognize, the legislative history of neither statute contains any reference, adverse or favorable, to contribution. Of course, such legislative silence is often encountered in implied-right-of-action cases; it is to be expected that “the legislative history of a statute that does not expressly create or deny a private remedy will typically be equally silent or ambiguous on the question.” Cannon, 441 U. S., at 694. Therefore, “the failure of Congress expressly to consider a private remedy is not inevitably inconsistent with an intent on its part to make such a remedy available.” Transamerica Mortgage Advisors, 444 U. S., at 18. But unless this congressional intent can be inferred from the language of the statute, the statutory structure, or some other source, the essential predicate for implication of a private remedy simply does not exist. In this case, we have been unable to discover any manifestation of an intent on the part of Congress to create a right to contribution in favor of employers under the Equal Pay Act and Title VII. Accordingly, we hold that there is no implied right to contribution under those statutes.

Ill

Although it is much too late to deny that there is a significant body of federal law that has been fashioned by the federal judiciary in the common-law tradition, it remains true that federal courts, unlike their state counterparts, are courts of limited jurisdiction that have not been vested with open-ended lawmaking powers. See United States v. Standard Oil Co., 332 U. S. 301, 313. Broadly worded constitutional and statutory provisions necessarily have been given concrete meaning and application by a process of case-by-case judicial decision in the common-law tradition. The Court also has recognized a responsibility, in the absence of legislation, to fashion federal common law in cases raising issues of uniquely federal concern, such as the definition of rights or duties of the United States, or the resolution of interstate controversies. However, we consistently have emphasized that the federal lawmaking power is vested in the legislative, not the judicial, branch of government; therefore, federal common law is “subject to the paramount authority of Congress.” New Jersey v. New York, 283 U. S. 336, 348.

A narrow exception to the limited lawmaking role of the federal judiciary is found in admiralty. We consistently have interpreted the grant of general admiralty jurisdiction to the federal courts as a proper basis for the development of judge-made rules of maritime law. See Fitzgerald v. United States Lines Co., 374 U. S. 16, 20-21. Because “the Congress has largely left to this Court the responsibility for fashioning the controlling rules of admiralty law,” id., at 20, “[ajdmiralty law is judge-made law to a great extent.” Edmonds v. Compagnie Generate Transatlantique, 443 U. S. 256, 259. Even in admiralty, however, where the federal judiciary’s lawmaking power may well be at its strongest, it is our duty to respect the will of Congress.

Pursuant to our authority to fashion flexible and equitable remedies in admiralty, see United States v. Reliable Transfer Co., 421 U. S. 397, 409, we approved a nonstatutory federal right to contribution among joint tortfeasors in Cooper Stevedoring Co. v. Fritz Kopke, Inc., 417 U. S. 106. In that case, relying upon ancient admiralty doctrine, we held that a shipowner may obtain contribution from another tortfeasor jointly responsible for causing injury to a longshoreman. However, contrary to petitioner’s argument and the understanding of some lower federal courts, Cooper Stevedoring did not recognize a general federal right to contribution, and no such general federal right has been recognized in any other decisions of this Court. Our approval of contribution in Cooper Stevedoring was based on traditional admiralty doctrine and on the power of the federal judiciary to fashion rules of law in admiralty. Neither of the predicates for that decision is applicable in the present context.

The liability of petitioner for discriminating against its female cabin attendants is entirely a creature of federal statute. In almost any statutory scheme, there may be a need for judicial interpretation of ambiguous or incomplete provisions. But the authority to construe a statute is fundamentally different from the authority to fashion a new rule or to provide a new remedy which Congress has decided not to adopt. Cf. Mobil Oil Corp. v. Higginbotham, 436 U. S. 618, 625. The presumption that a remedy was deliberately omitted from a statute is strongest when Congress has enacted a comprehensive legislative scheme including an integrated system of procedures for enforcement. Both the Equal Pay Act and Title YII of the Civil Bights Act of 1964 are such statutes. The judiciary may not, in the face of such comprehensive legislative schemes, fashion new remedies that might upset carefully considered legislative programs.

Last Term, in Mohasco Corp. v. Silver, 447 U. S. 807, we had occasion to consider the enforcement scheme of Title VII with some care. Although equitable considerations strongly supported a nonliteral reading of the statutory provisions regarding the time during which a claim could be asserted, see id., at 827-828 (Blackmun, J., dissenting), we concluded that we had a duty to "respect the compromise embodied in the words chosen by Congress. It is not our place simply to alter the balance struck by Congress in procedural statutes by favoring one side or the other in matters of statutory construction.” Id., at 826. In this case, as in Mohasco, a favorable reaction to the equitable considerations supporting petitioner’s contribution claim is not a sufficient reason for enlarging on the remedial provisions contained in these carefully considered statutes.

Whatever may be a federal court’s power to fashion remedies in other areas of the law, we are satisfied that it would be improper for us to add a right to contribution to the statutory rights that Congress created in the Equal Pay Act and Title VII. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is therefore modified insofar as it fails to direct the District Court to grant respondent unions’ motions to dismiss the complaint. Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed in part and vacated in part.

It is so ordered.

Justice Blackmun took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

       The Equal Pay Act, 77 Stat. 56, 29 U. S. C. §206 (d), which was enacted in 1963 as an amendment to the Fair Labor Standards Act, 52 Stat. 1060, 29 U. S. C. §201 et seq., provides, in relevant part:
      “(d)(1) No employer having employees subject to any provisions of this section shall discriminate, within any establishment in which such employees are employed, between employees on the basis of sex by paying wages to employees in such establishment at a rate less than the rate at which he pays wages to employees of the opposite sex in such establishment for equal work on jobs the performance of which requires equal skill, effort, and responsibility, and which are performed under similar working conditions, except where such payment is made pursuant to (i) a seniority system; (ii) a merit system; (iii) a system which measures earnings by quantity or quality of production; or (iv) a differential based on any other factor other than sex: Provided, That an employer who is paying a wage rate differential in violation of this subsection shall not, in order to comply with the provisions of this subsection, reduce the wage rate of any employee.
      “(2) No labor organization, or its agents, representing employees of an employer having employees subject to any provisions of this section shall cause or attempt to cause such an employer to discriminate against an employee in violation of paragraph (1) of this subsection.” 29 U. S. C. §§206 (d)(l)-(2).

       Section 703 of the Civil Rights Act, 78 Stat. 255, as amended and as set forth in 42 U. S. C. § 2000e-2, provides, in relevant’ part:
      “(a) ... It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer—
      “(1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin; or
      “(2) to limit, segregate, or classify his employees or applicants for employment in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.
      “(e) ... It shall be an unlawful employment practice for a labor organization—
      “(1) to exclude or to expel from its membership, or otherwise to discriminate against, any individual because of his race, color, religion, sex, or national origin;
      “(2) to limit, segregate, or classify its membership or applicants for membership, or to classify or fail or refuse to refer for employment any individual, in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities, or would limit such employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee or as an applicant for employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin; or
      “(3) to cause or attempt to cause an employer to discriminate against an individual in violation of this section.” 42 U. S. C. §§ 2000e-2 (a), (c).

       Because the case comes before us on respondents’ motions to dismiss, we accept as true the factual allegations of petitioner’s complaint. See Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U. S. 232, 236-237. Additional background information is taken from the District Court and Court of Appeals opinions in the underlying employment discrimination class action. See Laffey v. Northwest Airlines, Inc., 366 F. Supp. 763 (1973), aff’d in part, vacated and remanded in part, 185 U. S. App. D. C. 322, 567 F. 2d 429 (1976), cert. denied, 434 U. S. 1086.

       Prom 1946 to 1961, the cabin attendants were represented by the Airline Stewards and Stewardesses Association, International, which became affiliated with TWU in 1961. See Laffey v. Northwest Airlines, Inc., 366 F. Supp., at 765. Prior to 1947, all cabin attendants employed by petitioner were females classified as stewardesses. Ibid.

       No claims were asserted against the respondent unions, although the plaintiffs subsequently joined ALPA as a nonaligned party under Federal Rule, of Civil Procedure 19 (a) in order to bring before the District Court all parties necessary to implement a complete remedy. See Laffey v. Northwest Airlines, Inc., 185 U. S. App. D. C., at 370-371, 567 F. 2d, at 477-478. The plaintiffs expressly stated that they did not consider ALPA responsible for any of the alleged discrimination, and petitioner did not oppose ALPA’s participation as a nonaligned party. Id., at 371, 567 F. 2d, at 478.

       Shortly thereafter, the District Court entered an order detailing the remedial steps, including payment of backpay, that petitioner was to take to rectify its past discrimination. Laffey v. Northwest Airlines, Inc., 374 F. Supp. 1382 (1974).

       The opinion of the District Court in the present case indicates that petitioner’s monetary liability as a result of the Laffey litigation has been estimated to be $24,500,000. App. to Pet. for Cert. 11b, n. 23. Petitioner in this Court asserts that its monetary liability presently is calculated to be approximately $37 million. Brief for Petitioner 6.

       Petitioner moved to amend its answer to include a request that ALPA be realigned as a defendant and to assert a cross-claim for contribution or indemnification from ALPA for any Equal Pay Act or Title YII monetary liability assessed against petitioner and a claim for damages under the Equal Pay Act for allegedly causing petitioner’s violation. Petitioner also moved for leave to file a third-party complaint against TWU asserting similar claims.

       Most of the lower federal courts that have considered the question whether employers may seek contribution from unions for monetary liability under the Equal Pay Act have concluded that this right is not implicit in the statute nor available under federal common law. See, e. g., Denicola v. G. C. Murphy Co., 562 F. 2d 889 (CA3 1977); EEOC v. Ferris State College, 493 F. Supp. 707 (WD Mich. 1980); Marshall v. Tombs Janitorial Service, Inc., 82 CCH LC ¶ 33,559 (WD Mo. 1977); Usery v. Beloit College, 12 EPD ¶ 11,203 (WD Wis. 1976); Brennan v. Emerald Renovators, Inc., 410 F. Supp. 1057 (SDNY 1975). But see Love v. Temple University, 366 F. Supp. 835 (ED Pa. 1973); Wirtz v. Hayes Industries, Inc., 1 EPD ¶ 9874 (ND Ohio 1968).

       As the District Court explained:
      “The more difficult question is whether there is a right to contribution under federal law. The traditional American rule, originating in the English ease of Merryweather v. Nixan, was that there was no right to contribution between joint tortfeasors. This rule has been abrogated in most states, principally by statute although a few jurisdictions, including the District of Columbia, have done so by decisional law.’ As with state law, there was initially no right to contribution under federal law, absent legislation. Union Stock Yards Co. v. Chicago, B & Q R. Co., 196 U. S. 217, 224 (1905). However, the modem trend, as evidenced by cases such as Kohr v. Allegheny Airlines, Inc., 504 F. 2d 400 (7th Cir. 1974), cert. denied, 421 U. S. [978] (1975), has been to recognize a right to contribution under federal law. Gould v. American-Hawaiian Steamship Company, 387 F. Supp. 163, 169 (D. Del. 1974), vacated on other grounds, 535 F. 2d 761 (3rd Cir. 1976). The federal courts have come to realize that the policy considerations upon which the traditional rule was built are archaic and lead to inequities. Indeed, the most extensive body of law evidencing a significant trend toward fashioning a federal common law right to contribution concerns contribution for back pay awarded under Title VII.” App. to Pet. for Cert. llb-12b (footnotes omitted).

       The weight of authority in the lower federal courts supports the District Court’s conclusion that a right to contribution is available to employers found liable for backpay under Title VII. See, e. g., Glus v. G. C. Murphy Co., 629 F. 2d 248 (CA3 1980), cert., pending, No. 80-461; Stevenson v. International Paper Co., 432 F. Supp. 390 (WD La. 1977) ; International Union of Electrical, Radio, and Machine Workers v. Westinghouse Electric Corp., 73 F. R. D. 57 (WDNY 1976); Grogg v. General Motors Corp., 72 F. R. D. 523 (SDNY 1976); Lynch v. Sperry Rand Corp., 62 F. R. D. 78 (SDNY 1973); Gilbert v. General Electric Co., 59 F. R. D. 267 (ED Va. 1973); Osborne v. McCall Printing Co., 4 FEP Cases 276 (SD Ohio 1972); Torockio v. Chamberlain Mfg. Co., 51 F. R. D. 517 (WD Pa. 1970); Blanton v. Southern Bell Telephone & Telegraph Co., 49 F. R. D. 162 (ND Ga. 1970); Bowe v. Colgate-Palmolive Co., 272 F. Supp. 332 (SD Ind. 1967), aff’d in part and rev’d in part, 416 F. 2d 711 (CA7 1969). But see Younger v. Glamorgan Pipe & Foundry Co., 418 F. Supp. 743 (WD Va. 1976), vacated on other grounds, 561 F. 2d 563 (CA4 1977); Harden v. Illinois Bell

        Telephone Co., No. 74 C 1505 (ND Ill., Apr. 8, 1975). Cf. Communication Workers of America v. Illinois Bell Telephone Co., 12 EPD ¶ 11,275 (ND Ill. 1976).

       The District Court entered an appropriate order under 28 U. S. C. § 1292 (b), and the Court of Appeals allowed the interlocutory appeal.

       The District Court made the findings required by Rule 54 (b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

       The Court of Appeals described this statutory scheme in detail:
      “It is improbable that an employee would ever have an' implied cause of action under the Equal Pay Act against his union. The statutory scheme envisions three modes of enforcement and to imply a fourth would be inconsistent with the intent evidenced by the existing three: First, under section 216 (a) of title 29, U. S. Code, ‘any person’ who wilfully violates the Act may be subject to criminal penalties. Under section 216 (c), the Secretary of Labor may bring suit to recover money owing ‘to any employee or employees.’ Finally, section 216 (b) of title 29 permits suits by employees against ‘any employer’ who violates the Act. The statutory scheme of enforcement is comprehensive and by omission, it insulates unions from suits by employees. This statutory protection would certainly be frustrated by a declaration that an employer could recover from a union, once that employer had been found liable to its employees. Of course, we need not — and do not — definitely resolve the issue of an employee’s right to sue a union under the Act. We hold only that the likelihood of the implication of such a right is sufficiently remote to preclude the creation of a cause of action against a union for contribution or indemnification. Such a cause of action would, in reality, create liability on the part of the union for the benefit of employees whom Congress did not intend to protect in such a manner.” 196 U. S. App. D. C. 443, 448, 606 F. 2d 1350, 1355 (1979) (footnote omitted).

       As our discussion of the implied right of action and federal common-law theories will indicate, see Parts II and III, infra, we find that the same legal questions are presented by both the Equal Pay Act and Title VII contribution claims. Because the same analysis is applicable to both claims, we address the Title VII question despite the Court- of Appeals’ decision to avoid consideration of that question on the merits. See Minnesota v. Clover Leaf Creamery Co., 449 U. S. 456, 470-471, n. 14; New York City Transit Authority v. Beazer, 440 U. S. 568, 583-584, n. 24. It should be noted that the reasons for avoiding the unnecessary or premature decision of constitutional questions are not necessarily applicable to the decision of statutory questions. For if an interpretation of a statute misapprehends the actual intent of Congress or is proved by experience to have been unwise, remedial legislation can be promptly enacted.

       The no-contribution rule of the common law is generally traced to Merryweather v. Nixan, 8 Term Rep. 186, 101 Eng. Rep. 1337 (K. B. 1799). However, scholars have persuasively argued that Merryweather cannot be read to establish a general rule prohibiting contribution among joint tortfeasors; rather, they interpret Merryweather to announce only a rule barring contribution in cases of intentional wrongdoing. See, e. g., W. Prosser, Law of Torts § 50, pp. 305-306 (4th ed. 1971); Sullivan, New Perspectives in Antitrust Litigation: Towards a Right of Comparative Contribution, 1980 U. Ill. Law Forum 389, 392-393. Nevertheless, because most American courts understood Merry weather as a general proscription of contribution, the common law in this country traditionally prohibited contribution among joint tortfeasors in all cases. See Union Stock Yards Co. v. Chicago B. & Q. R. Co., 196 U. S. 217.

       Thirty-nine States and the District of Columbia recognize to some extent a right to contribution among joint tortfeasors. In 10 jurisdictions, the common-law rule was initially changed by judicial action. See George’s Radio, Inc. v. Capital Transit Co., 75 U. S. App. D. C. 187, 126 F. 2d 219 (1942); Skinner v. Reed-Prentice Div. Package Machinery Co., 70 Ill. 2d 1, 374 N. E. 2d 437 (1977); Best v. Yerkes, 247 Iowa 800, 77 N. W. 2d 23 (1956); Quatray v. Wicker, 178 La. 289, 151 So. 208 (1933); Bedell v. Reagan, 159 Me. 292, 192 A. 2d 24 (1963); Underwriters at Lloyds v. Smith, 166 Minn. 388, 208 N. W. 13 (1926); Royal Indemnity Co. v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 193 Neb. 752, 229 N. W. 2d 183 (1975); Goldman v. Mitchell-Fletcher Co., 292 Pa. 354, 141 A. 231 (1928); Davis v. Broad Street Garage, 191 Tenn. 320, 232 S. W. 2d 355 (1950); Ellis v. Chicago & N. W. R. Co., 167 Wis. 392, 167 N. W. 1048 (1918). Four of these States later adopted contribution statutes. See La. Civ. Code Ann., Arts. 2100-2105 (West 1977); Pa. Stat. Ann., Tit. 42, §§ 8321-8327 (Purdon Supp. 1980); Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 23-3101 to 23-3106 (Supp. 1979); Wis. Stat. §§ 113.01-113.11 (1977). The remaining States relied upon legislative action to change the common-law rule. See Alaska Stat. Ann. §§ 09.16.010 to 09.16.060 (1980); Ark. Stat. Ann. §§34-1001 to 34r-1009 (1962); Cal. Civ. Proc. Code Ann. §§875-880 (West 1980 and Supp. 1981); Colo. Rev. Stat. §§13-50.5-101 to 13-50.5-106 (Supp. 1980); Del. Code Ann., Tit. 10, §§ 6301-6308 (1975); Fla. Stat. § 768.31 (Supp. 1979); Ga. Code § 105-2012 (1978); Haw. Rev. Stat. §§ 663-11 to 663-17 (1976); Idaho Code §§ 6-803 to 6-806 (1979) ; Kan. Stat. Ann. §60-2413 (1976); Ky. Rev. Stat. §§412.010-412.060 (1972); Md. Ann. Code, Art. 50, §§ 16-24 (1979); Mass. Gen. Laws Ann., ch. 231B, §§ 1-4 (West Supp. 1981); Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. §§ 600.-2925a-600.2925d (West Supp. 1980-1981); Miss. Code Ann. §85-5-5 (1972); Mo. Rev. Stat. § 537.060 (1978); Nev. Rev. Stat. §§ 17.225-17.305 (1979); N. J. Stat. Ann. §§2A:53A-1 to 2A:53A-5 (West 1952); N. M. Stat. Ann. §§41-3-1 to 41-3-8 (1978); N. Y. Civ. Prac. Law §§ 1401-1404 (McKinney 1976); N. C. Gen. Stat. §§ IB-1 to IB-6 (1969); N. D. Cent. Code §§ 32-38-01 to 32-38-04 (1976); Ore. Rev. Stat. §§ 18.440-18.460 (1979); R. I. Gen. Laws §§ 10-6-1 to 10-6-11 (1969 and Supp. 1980); S. D. Comp. Laws Ann. §§15-8-11 to 15-8-22 (1967); Tex. Rev. Civ. Stat. Ann., Art. 2212a, §2 (Vernon Supp. 1980-1981); Utah Code Ann. §§78-27-39 to 78-27-43 (1977); Va. Code §§8.01-34, 8.01-35.1 (1977 and Supp. 1980); W. Va. Code §55-7-13 (1981); Wyo. Stat. §§1-1-110 to 1-1-113 (1977).

       See Restatement (Second) of Torts § 886A (1979); Prosser, supra, at 307-309.

       See Judson v. Peoples Bank & Trust Co., 17 N. J. 67, 88-89, 110 A. 2d 24, 34 (1954); Prosser, supra, § 50.

       Implicit in this assumption are two other important assumptions. First, we assume, as alleged in the complaint, that the unions are in fact at least partially responsible for the Equal Pay Act and Title VII violations established in the Laffey litigation. Second, we assume that the Laffey plaintiffs, if they had so chosen, could have asserted a claim for monetary relief against their unions under both the Equal Pay Act and Title VII. Title VII expressly provides for such private actions. See 42 U. S. C. §§ 2000e-5 (f), 2000e-5(g). However, the Equal Pay Act does not expressly create such a right of action, and the lower federal courts have generally refused to find that the Act implicitly created this right. See, e. g., Tuma v. American Can Co., 367 F. Supp. 1178 (NJ 1973). Cf. Hodgson v. Sagner, Inc., 326 F. Supp. 371 (Md. 1971), aff’d, 462 F. 2d 180 (CA4 1972).
      The Court of Appeals in this case relied upon the uncertain availability of such a remedy under the Equal Pay Act as a basis for rejecting petitioner’s claim for contribution. 196 U. S. App. D. C., at 447-449, 606 F. 2d, at 1354-1356. The availability of this implied remedy, however, is relevant primarily to the question whether the elements of a contribution claim have been established; if no right to contribution exists at all, it is irrelevant that the elements of a traditional contribution claim may or may not have been established in this case. Because we conclude that no right to contribution exists under either the statute or the federal common law, we need not decide whether the elements of a contribution claim have been established in this case. Therefore, we need not and do not decide the question whether employees have an implied right of action for back-pay against their unions for violations of the Equal Pay Act.

       The EEOC filed a brief as amicus curiae in the Court of Appeals arguing as follows:
      “Recognizing a right to contribution for Title YII liability against a person who was not named in an EEOC charge is fully consistent with the substantive and remedial policies of the statute. . . .
      “. . . Permitting a party to assert a contribution claim against another who has violated the Title, where that person was not named in a charge through inadvert [e]nee or design, manifestly serves the primary, prophylactic purpose of Title VII.
      “It cannot be inferred that claims for contribution constitute an exception to this policy, because there is no necessary inconsistency between the statutory scheme of Title VII and the assertion of a right to contribution for Title VII liability. This is because an employer seeking contribution is not asserting that it has been injured by conduct unlawful under the statute, but rather it is asserting an equitable claim to reimbursement, enforced at common law, from another wrongdoer who shares common liability.” Brief for EEOC as Amicus Curiae in No. 78-1056 (CADC), pp. 12-14.
      In this Court, however, the EEOC argues as follows:
      “Contribution would undermine the policies, and interfere with enforcement, of the Equal Pay Act. . . . For somewhat different reasons, contribution would undermine the policies, and interfere with enforcement, of Title VII.” Brief for United States and EEOC as Amici Curiae 5.

       See Steelworkers v. Weber, 443 U. S. 193, 198, and n. 1; Note, Union Liability for Employer Discrimination, 93 Harv. L. Rev. 702 (1980).

       The federal courts that .have recognized a right to contribution under Title VII are divided with respect to- whether that right may be asserted against a union that has not been named in a charge filed with the EEOC. Compare Osborne v. McCall Printing Co., 4 FEP Cases 276 (SD Ohio 1972); Blanton v. Southern Bell Telephone & Telegraph Co., 49 F. R. D. 162 (ND Ga. 1970); Torockio v. Chamberlain Mjg. Co., 51 F. R. D. 517 (WD Pa. 1970), with Stevenson v. International Paper Co., 432 F. Supp. 390 (WD La. 1977); Bowe v. Colgate-Palmolive Co., 416 F. 2d 711 (CA7 1969). Cf. Gilbert v. General Electric Co., 59 F. R. D. 267 (ED Va. 1973).

       Congress expressly provided for contribution among joint wrongdoers in the Securities Act of 1933, see 15 U. S. C. § 77k (f), and in the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, see 15 U. S. C. §§78i(e), 78r(b). Thus, at least in these instances, when Congress wanted to provide a right to contribution, it did so expressly.
      A number of federal courts have recognized an implied right to contribution under the securities laws where the underlying liability resulted from an implied private right of action. These courts have reasoned that because Congress expressly created a right to contribution to correspond to certain express civil remedies, contribution should also be permitted when liability is based on an implied civil remedy. See, e. g., Heizer Corp. v. Ross, 601 F. 2d 330 (CA7 1979); Globus, Inc. v. Law Research Service,

        Inc., 318 F. Supp. 955 (SDNY 1970), aff’d, 442 F. 2d 1346 (CA2 1971), cert. denied, 404 U. S. 941. Whatever the merit of this reasoning, a question we do not now address, these decisions provide no support for petitioner in this case.

       The Court of Appeals rejected the District Court’s literal application of the first Cort v. Ash factor, finding it inappropriate for evaluation of a contribution claim. 196 U. S. App. D. C., at 447, 606 F. 2d, at 1354. Rather than focusing on the rights conferred upon employers by the Equal Pay Act, the court reasoned that the proper inquiry was to determine whether employees could bring suit against their unions under this statute. Viewed in this light, the first Cort factor was easily satisfied in this case; employees clearly were within the class for whose especial benefit the Equal Pay Act was enacted. 196 U. S. App. D. C., at 447-448, 606 F. 2d, at 1354-1355. However, this analysis confuses the question whether the elements of a contribution claim — in particular, common liability — are established in a given case, with the question whether Congress intended that contribution should be available under any circumstances. See n. 20, supra. The Court of Appeals erred in this case because it failed to focus on whether the party seeking to invoke the implied remedy is a member of a class that Congress intended to benefit.

       Indeed, inasmuch as petitioner was found guilty in the Laffey litigation of discrimination in violation of these statutes, it is a member of the precise class Congress intended to regulate.

       Section 3 of the Equal Pay Act- provides:
      “No labor organization, or its agents, representing employees of an employer having employees subject to any provisions of this section shall cause or attempt to cause such an employer to discriminate against an employee in violation of paragraph (1) of this subsection.” 29 U. S. C. §206 (d) (2).
      Section 703 (c) (3) of Title YII provides:
      “(c) ... It shall be an unlawful employment practice for a labor organization—
      “(3) to cause or attempt to cause an employer to discriminate against an individual in violation of this section.” 42 U. S. C. §2000e-2 (c)(3).

       A court’s broad power under § 706 (g), 42 U. S. C. § 2000e-5 (g), to fashion relief against all respondents named in a properly filed charge is not, of course, at issue in this litigation since no charge was filed against either of the respondent unions.

       See Gluss v. G. C. Murphy Co., 629 F. 2d, at 265 (Sloviter, J., dissenting).

        “A frequently stated principle of statutory construction is that when legislation expressly provides a particular remedy or remedies, courts should not expand the coverage of the statute to subsume other remedies.” National Railroad Passenger Corp. v. National Association of Railroad Passengers, 414 U. S. 453, 458. This principle of statutory construction applies with full force in this case. See also Transamerica Mortgage Advisors, Inc. v. Lewis, 444 U. S. 11, 19-20.

       In a case in which neither the statute nor the legislative history reveals a congressional intent to create a private right of action for the benefit of the plaintiff, we need not carry the Cort v. Ash inquiry further. See Universities Research Assn., Inc. v. Coutu, 450 U. S. 754, 770-771, n. 21; Touche Ross & Co. v. Redington, 442 U. S. 560, 575-576; id., at 579-580 (BRENNAN, J., concurring).

       See, e. g., Clearfield Trust Co. v. United States, 318 U. S. 363, 366-367; Miree v. DeKalb County, 433 U. S. 25, 31-32; United States v. Standard Oil Co., 332 U. S., at 316.

       See, e. g., Illinois v. Milwaukee, 406 U. S. 91; Kansas v. Colorado, 206 U. S. 46, 97; Hinderlider v. La Plata River & Cherry Creek Ditch Co., 304 U. S. 92, 110.

       Thus, once Congress addresses a subject, even a subject previously governed by federal common law, the justification for lawmaking by the federal courts is greatly diminished. Thereafter, the task of the federal courts is to interpret and apply statutory law, not to create common law. See, e. g., Illinois v. Milwaukee, supra, at 107; Arizona v. California, 373 U. S. 546, 565-566.

       An analogous situation is presented under § 301 (a) of the Labor Management Relations Act, 29 U. S. C. § 185 (a). In Textile Workers v. Lincoln Mills, 353 U. S. 448, we concluded that § 301 (a) supplied a basis for federal jurisdiction over certain cases and an authorization for judicial development of substantive federal law to govern those cases.

       See, e. g., Edmonds, 443 U. S., at 271-273; Mobil Oil Corp. v. Higginbotham, 436 U. S. 618, 625; Halcyon Lines v. Haenn Ship Corp., 342 U. S. 282, 285-287; Cooper Stevedoring Co. v. Fritz Kopke, Inc., 417 U. S. 106, 111-113.

       See, e. g., Gins v. G. C. Murphy Co., 629 E. 2d, at 253; Professional Beauty Supply, Inc. v. National Beauty Supply, Inc., 594 F. 2d 1179, 1183 (CA8 1979); Cohen v. United States, 1975-1 USTC ¶ 9391, p. 86,967 (ED Mich. 1975).

       Of course, federal courts, including this Court, have recognized a right to contribution under state law in cases in which state law supplied the appropriate rule of decision. See, e. g., United States v. Yellow Cab Co., 340 U. S. 543; Gomes v. Brodhurst, 394 F. 2d 465 (CA3 1967). These eases are inapposite here.

       As we emphasized in Cooper Stevedoring, the tradition of division of damages was unique to admiralty and had been rejected at common law. 417 U. S., at 110.

       As Halcyon Lines, supra, demonstrates, even in admiralty we decline to fashion new remedies if there is a possibility that they may interfere with a legislative program. See Cooper Stevedoring, supra, at 111-113.

       The equitable considerations advanced by petitioner are properly addressed to Congress, not to the federal courts. Congress is best able to evaluate these policy considerations:
      “[T]he claim now asserted, though the product of a law Congress passed, is a matter on which Congress has not taken a position. It presents questions of policy on which Congress has not spoken. The selection of that policy which is most advantageous to the whole involves a host of considerations that must be weighed and appraised. That function is more appropriately for those who write the laws, rather than for those who interpret them.” United States v. Gilman, 347 U. S. 507, 511-513.

       Presently pending before us is a case presenting the question whether contribution is available und'er the federal antitrust laws. Texas Industries, Inc. v. Radcliff Materials, Inc., No. 79-1144. Although that question is analogous to the question addressed in this case, we note that Texas Industries involves a substantially different statutory scheme. In antitrust, the federal courts enjoy more flexibility and act more as common-law courts than in other areas governed by federal statute. See National Society of Professional Engineers v. United States, 435 U. S. 679, 688.