The first intimation that a joint committee decision was 'arbitration' came in 1963 in General Drivers v. Riis & Company. The U.S. Supreme Court held that the policy of the Labor Act could be effectuated 'only if the means chosen by the parties for the settlement of their differences under a collective bargaining agreement is given full play.' It followed that if the joint committee was the parties' chosen instrument for the settlement of grievances and its decision was 'final and binding,' it was enforceable whether or not it was termed arbitration. Additionally, the cases of Humphrey v. Moore, Hines v. Anchor Motor Freight, United Parcel Service v. Mitchell, DelCostello v. Teamsters, and Steelworkers v. Flowers are reviewed. The Court has treated joint committee decisions as 'arbitration,' although in no case in which it did so was the question argued. Further, since DelCostello, the issue makes no difference in determining the appropriate statute of limitations in a fair representation suit. However, areas are identified where it does make a difference whether or not a joint committee decision is regarded as an arbitration decision or as an agreement between management and union representatives. Finally, the case of Del Casal v. Eastern Airlines is reviewed, and the fairness of Del Casal's hearing before the four-man System Board is considered. Twenty-four references are listed.