Summary
This Ninth Circuit appeal addresses whether a federal district court or an arbitrator should decide a dispute over the timeliness of a union's demand for arbitration under a collective bargaining agreement. The district court denied the union's petition to compel arbitration, ruling that the demand was untimely and that the court had jurisdiction to enforce the contractual time limit. The appellate court reversed, holding that procedural questions regarding time limitations and compliance with grievance procedures are matters for the arbitrator to decide under established Supreme Court precedent. The case was remanded for entry of an order compelling arbitration.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the district court or an arbitrator should decide the contractual timeliness of Local 588's demand for arbitration when the underlying discharge dispute was concededly arbitrable.
- Whether the petition to compel arbitration should be granted despite factual questions concerning waiver, further settlement discussions, and whether formal notice of the committee's deadlock was required.
Holdings
- When the underlying dispute is subject to arbitration, contractual time-limit and other procedural questions growing out of that dispute should be submitted to the arbitrator, particularly where factual disputes bear on timeliness or waiver.
- The petition should be granted and arbitration compelled, with the arbitrator deciding any issue concerning the timeliness of Local 588's notice.
Key quotations
“Once it is determined ... that the parties are obligated to submit the subject matter of a dispute to arbitration, 'procedural' questions which grow out of the dispute and bear on its final disposition should be left to the arbitrator.”
“This suggestion finds support in Arbitration Act policy which counsels that "doubts concerning the scope of arbitrable issues should be resolved in favor of arbitration."”
Factual background
A collective bargaining agreement between Local 588 and Servomation established a grievance procedure and permitted arbitration if notice was given within seventy-two hours after an Adjustment Committee notified the parties that it could not decide a dispute. The committee deadlocked on September 29, 1981, concerning Local 588's grievance over Orlandus Bransford's discharge, but the record did not show that formal notice of the deadlock was provided. Local 588 demanded arbitration on October 7 and later made additional demands, asserting that further settlement discussions excused any delay; Servomation refused to arbitrate as untimely.
Procedural history
Local 588 filed a grievance challenging the termination of employee Orlandus Bransford. After the contractual Adjustment Committee deadlocked, Local 588 demanded arbitration more than seventy-two hours after the committee meeting. Servomation refused arbitration, and the district court denied Local 588's petition to compel arbitration after concluding that it could decide the timeliness issue and finding no evidence excusing the delay. The district court also denied Local 588's motion to alter or obtain relief from the judgment.
Remand instructions
Reverse the district court's judgment and remand for entry of an order compelling arbitration of the Bransford discharge, including any issue concerning the timeliness of the notice.