The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s order to compel arbitration finding that it was the arbitrator’s task to evaluate the scope of the grievance and the CBA.
Background
In International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union No. 716, AFL-CIO v. Albemarle Corporation, Inc., No. 11-20883 (5th Cir. June 18, 2012) the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (“Union”) filed a grievance against Albemarle Corporation (“Albemarle”), a company that manufactures specialty chemicals and operates a chemical plant in Pasadena, Texas. Both are parties to a collective bargaining agreement (“CBA”), and pursuant to that CBA, the Union filed a grievance known as Grievance 10-02. The grievance was denied at all stages of internal review. The CBA allowed for arbitration in limited circumstances, but Albemarle refused to arbitrate the grievance. The Union sued Albemarle to compel arbitration.
The Union claimed that Albemarle’s refusal to submit the grievance to arbitration violated the CBA. Albemarle argued that the Union was attempting to arbitrate issues outside the scope of Grievance 10-02 by recharacterizing the subject matter of the grievance. The district court agreed with the Union and granted summary judgment in its favor.
Fifth Circuit
According to the Court, it was undisputed that the CBA allowed the Union to raise Grievance 10-02 and that the CBA thus entitled the Union to arbitration of that grievance. The particular issue was whether Grievance 10-02 encompasses the claims on which the Union sought to compel arbitration. The Court addressed whether that was a question for the court or the arbitrator to decide.
The Court reviewed the CBA to determine the scope of the parties’ agreement. The CBA entitle the Union to arbitrate “grievances,” which included any dispute between the parties involving the proper application of, interpretation of, or compliance with the CBA. However, the CBA does not extend the right to arbitration to “complaints,” which involve claims that do not allege violations of the CBA. Furthermore, the CBA prohibited the parties from attempting to arbitrate a complaint by disguising it as a grievance.
The Court explained that the CBA required the Union to meet certain procedural requirements before it could arbitrate a claim. It was undisputed that the Union met those procedural requirements to arbitrate. The CBA left the questions of proper application of or compliance with the CBA to the arbitrator. Furthermore, questions of falsely citing contract violations merely for the purpose of elevating a complaint to grievance status is also a question left to the arbitrator.
The Court concluded that the Union’s right to arbitration was limited to the scope of Grievance 10-02 and that the Union’s complaint was limited to Grievance 10-02. The arbitrator need not consider issues outside the scope of Grievance 10-02. Thus, the district court did not err in ordering Albemarle to arbitrate Grievance 10-02. The Court affirmed.