In this case, a conciliation agreement requiring the company to cease and desist racially and sexually discriminatory employment practices overrode a seniority provision of the collective bargaining agreement. Consequently, the union instituted grievances to establish seniority rates and the company brought suit to enjoin the union from arbitrating grievances that would conflict with the conciliation agreement. The Federal district court found for the company. On appeal, the Fifth Circuit Court upheld the award to the employee deprived of seniority rights on the grounds that the conciliation agreement was illegal and unfairly punished employees and profited the company. This case raises two major issues, often debated without resolution. The first is the role of stare decisis in arbitration: should an arbitrated decision be binding over the life of the contract on which it was based, or is it justified for the parties to keep reopening the same issue through the grievance procedure, thus keeping the contract provision unsettled? The second issue is the arbitrator's responsibility to interpret the contract, not determine the law. It is suggested that the purpose of an agreement to arbitrate is to establish an interpretation and application of the contract that is binding to both parties, and that a distinction between contract interpretation and law is erroneous because a document purporting to be a contract must comply with the law. 13 footnotes.