The appellate court judge who wrote the decision of the three-judge panel in this case began his opinion as follows:

Coffin, Chief Judge—This tempest has beenbrewed in a very small teapot. The dispute which precipitated the filing in this court of more than 80 pages of briefs and an extensive appendix began on July 30, 1974, when appellee Anheuser-Busch posted a notice prohibiting employees at its Merrimack, New Hampshire, brewery from wearing tank-top shirts on the job. Tank-tops are sleeveless shirts which leave exposed the shoulders, arms and underarms of the wearer. Beginning on July 31, when three employees were sent home after refusing to doff their tank-tops for other shirts, the emotional temperature rose, with over a dozen more employees, including shop stewards, being sent home a few days later. The issue peaked by August 14, when thirteen of the eighteen employees in the Brewery Department wore tank-tops, refused to put on other shirts, and went home. Approximately thirty employees in the Maintenance Department wore tank-tops on August 15.On August 16 no maintenance employees reported for work and production at the brewery was halted.

The brewery filed a lawsuit in federal district court seeking injunctive relief and damages against the employees’ union on the grounds that the collective bargaining agreement contained a nostrike clause and an arbitration clause.

The union responded that (1) the employees’

actions were individual, not concerted, activity; (2)

the employees were entitled to wear the tank-tops pending arbitration of the controversy; and (3) the employer should not be permitted to hide behind a Boys Markets injunction after management’s overreaction had itself precipitated the crisis.

How do you think the court ruled in this dispute? See Anheuser-Busch v. Teamsters Local 633

[511 F.2d 1097 (1st Cir.)], cert. denied [423 U.S.

875(1975)].