Narrative Opinion Summary
The case concerns the arbitration clause within a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) between Contemporary Services Corporation and Services Employees International Union, Local 1877. The primary legal issue is whether the arbitration provision applies to claims initiated by the employer, Contemporary. The court examines the presumption of arbitrability in labor agreements, referring to AT&T Technologies, Inc. v. Communications Workers of America, which asserts that arbitration should be favored unless the agreement clearly excludes the dispute. The court notes that any ambiguity should be resolved in favor of arbitration, consistent with United Steelworkers of America v. Warrior Gulf Navigation Co. The CBA's provisions do not explicitly exclude employer-initiated claims, leading to a strong presumption in favor of arbitration. Contemporary's argument, based on Atkinson v. Sinclair Refining Co., fails as the limitations present in Atkinson are absent in the current CBA. Consequently, the district court's dismissal of Contemporary's claims is affirmed. The decision is not intended for publication and has restricted citation under Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Legal Issues Addressed
Ambiguity in Arbitration Clausessubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court emphasizes that any ambiguity in the arbitration clause within the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) should be resolved in favor of arbitration, following the precedent set in United Steelworkers of America v. Warrior Gulf Navigation Co.
Reasoning: Any ambiguity should be resolved in favor of arbitration, as reiterated in United Steelworkers of America v. Warrior Gulf Navigation Co.
Application of Arbitration Provisions to Employer-Initiated Claimssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court found that the arbitration provision in the CBA between Contemporary Services Corporation and Services Employees International Union, Local 1877, does not explicitly exclude employer-initiated claims, thus supporting arbitration under the CBA.
Reasoning: The grievance and arbitration provision's applicability to claims initiated by Contemporary is ambiguous. The lack of express exclusion for such claims suggests a strong presumption in favor of arbitration.
Comparison with Precedent Casessubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Contemporary's reference to Atkinson v. Sinclair Refining Co. is deemed irrelevant because the arbitration provision in Atkinson explicitly limited the arbitrator's jurisdiction, a restriction not present in the current CBA.
Reasoning: Contemporary's reliance on Atkinson v. Sinclair Refining Co. is deemed unpersuasive, as the arbitration provision in Atkinson expressly restricted the arbitrator's jurisdiction to specific employee grievances, a limitation not present in Article 12 of the current CBA.
Presumption of Arbitrability in Labor Agreementssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The case evaluates the presumption of arbitrability in a labor agreement's arbitration clause, highlighting that arbitration should not be denied unless the clause explicitly excludes the dispute, aligning with AT&T Technologies, Inc. v. Communications Workers of America.
Reasoning: An arbitration clause within a labor agreement presumes arbitrability, as established in AT&T Technologies, Inc. v. Communications Workers of America, where it is stated that arbitration should not be denied unless there is positive assurance that the clause does not cover the dispute.