09-4001, Karl Schmidt Unisia Inc. v. International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, UAW Local 2357, et al.,

Listen to this article

Labor and Employment
Arbitrable grievances

Summary judgment was appropriate where a union’s grievances regarding a “Thirty and Out” provision, which provides eligibility for supplemental retirement benefits, are arbitrable because the terms of the parties’ collective bargaining agreement did not expressly exclude them, nor did the company supply “most forceful evidence of a purpose to exclude” the claims from arbitration.

“The Company argues the CBA’s arbitration clause and the CBA’s definition of ‘grievance’ expressly exclude the Union’s claim from arbitration. We disagree. According to the Company, because the CBA does not specifically address whether an employee may be laid off when he reaches the § 13.01 requirements, the Union has not alleged that the Company violated an express provision of the CBA. And because a grievance must claim a violation of an express term of the CBA, the Union’s claim is not a grievance. The arbitration clause applies to grievances, the argument goes, so we should apply the interpretive rule of inclusio unius est exclusio alterious (the inclusion of one is the exclusion of another) to show the arbitration clause expressly excludes the Union’s claim.

“But to articulate this argument is to recognize its absurdity: mere failure to address a type of dispute is not necessarily an express exclusion of that type. A rule of construction that implies exclusion is irrelevant to the question of express exclusion. Moreover, if we were to accept this argument, the arbiter’s interpretive domain would be a null set-limited to disputes for which a plain reading of the CBA clearly determines the outcome. Finally, to accept this argument would be to conclude that §§ 13.01 and 6.02 of the CBA do not require the Company to provide the supplemental Thirty and Out benefit to employees who are laid off when they meet the relevant age and seniority requirements. This conclusion would be a ruling on the merits of the Union’s claim, and we ‘have no business’ making such a ruling. AT&T Techs., 475 U.S. at 649-50.” …
As for the most forceful evidence of the parties’ intent not to arbitrate, “We need not decide whether the Company’s proposed ‘underlying issue’ test may provide most forceful evidence against arbitrability because issues underlying the present dispute require interpretation of the CBA. The Company argues that because it agrees the laid-off employees meet all CBA requirements for the Thirty and Out benefit, the only disputed issue is whether the ‘termination’ language in the Pension Plan makes the laid-off employees nonetheless ineligible for the Thirty and Out benefit.

“But the meaning of ‘termination’ is only one of several issues underlying the dispute. One issue the Company does not recognize is whether § 13.01 of the CBA reflects the parties’ intent to allow all employees, regardless of layoff status, to receive the Thirty and Out benefit. If the best reading of § 13.01 reveals that the parties intended to allow laid-off employees to receive the Thirty and Out benefit, then any contrary Company action based on an interpretation of ‘termination’ in the Pension Plan would violate § 13.01, even if it does not violate the Pension Plan. Another underlying issue is whether § 13.01 contemplates that the Pension Plan’s Thirty and Out eligibility requirements will remain constant. If the best reading of § 13.01 reflects the parties’ intent to maintain the eligibility requirements of the Pension Plan as of the effective date of the CBA, then any Company denial of the Thirty and Out benefit based on a subsequent unilateral amendment to the Pension Plan may violate the CBA. Since these issues underlying the dispute require interpretation of the CBA, the Company’s ‘underlying issues’ argument does not show most forceful evidence of an intent to exclude the dispute from arbitration.”
Affirmed.

09-4001, Karl Schmidt Unisia Inc. v. International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, UAW Local 2357, et al.,

Northern District of Indiana, Fort Wayne Division, Van Bokkelen, J., Kanne, J.

Full Text