ational Union A.F. of L. v. Prudential Ins. Co., D.C.Pa. 1954, 122 F. Supp. 869; Evening Star Newspaper Co. v. Columbia Typographical Union, D.C.D.C. 1954, 124 F. Supp. 322; International Union, etc., v. Buffalo Springfield Co., D.C.S.D. Ohio 1955, 131 F. Supp. 667; United Textile Workers of America, A.F.L. v. Goodall-Sanford, Inc., D.C.S.D. Maine 1955, 129 F. Supp. 859; Textile Workers Union v. Lincoln Mills, D.C.N.D. Ala. 1955, 36 L.R.R.M. 2361, later overruled by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in the decision discussed above. Those federal district courts, which in addition to the Lincoln Mills, supra, appellate court decision previously discussed, deny the authority of federal district courts to enforce labor arbitration agreements are the following: Local 205, United Elec., etc., v. General Electric Co., D.C.Mass. 1955, 129 F. Supp. 665; Newspaper Guild v. Herold-Traveler, D.C.Mass. 1955, 140 F. Supp. 759; Newspaper Guild of Pawtucket v. Times Publishing Co., D.C.R.I. 1955, 131 F. Supp. 499, 501. The most curious departure the Lincoln Mills Fifth Circuit appellate court decision makes from the district court decisions which deny the availability of injunctive relief in the federal district court in enforcing agreements to arbitrate labor disputes, is found in the respective applications of the Norris-La Guardia Act to the point in question.
Sec. 4, Title 9 U.S. Code, San Carlo Opera Co. v. Conley, D.C., 72 F. Supp. 825, affirmed 2 Cir., 163 F.2d 310; Krauss Bros. Lumber Co. v. Louis Bossert Sons, Inc., 2 Cir., 62 F.2d 1004; Amalgamated Ass'n, etc., v. Southern Bus Lines, Inc., 5 Cir., 1951, 189 F.2d 219, 221." Mengel Co. v. Nashville Paper Products Specialty Workers Union, 6 Cir., 221 F.2d 644, at page 648. Accord: Newspaper Guild of Pawtucket v. Times Pub. Co., D.C.R.I. 1955, 131 F. Supp. 499, at page 501. "A party aggrieved by the alleged failure, neglect, or refusal of another to arbitrate under a written agreement for arbitration may petition any United States district court which, save for such agreement, would have jurisdiction under Title 28, in a civil action * * * of the subject matter of a suit arising out of the controversy between the parties * * *."
The evidence further established that upon the refusal of the defendant to designate an arbitrator the plaintiff waived its right to be represented in the arbitration proceedings by its arbitrator and that the third or impartial arbitrator proceeded to act alone; that he gave the defendant notice of the date, place and hour of the proposed hearing to be held by him as such sole arbitrator; that the defendant was not represented at and declined to participate in any manner in said hearing; and that following said hearing the sole arbitrator made the award which plaintiff seeks to enforce in this action. In the case of The Newspaper Guild of Pawtucket v. Times Publishing Co., D.C., 131 F. Supp. 499, I held that a federal district court had no jurisdiction to compel specific performance of executory agreements to arbitrate disputes arising out of collective bargaining agreements. Where, however, a dispute is submitted to arbitration by parties pursuant to an arbitration agreement and a valid award is made in conformity with such agreement, a different rule prevails.