Independent Union of Tretolite Chemical Workers v. Petrolite Corp.

Citations: 658 F. Supp. 643; 1987 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3270Docket: No. 86-1234 C (5)

Court: District Court, E.D. Missouri; April 16, 1987; Federal District Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

The legal determination revolves around whether grievances filed by The Independent Union of Tretolite Chemical Workers against Petrolite Corporation are subject to arbitration as stipulated in their collective bargaining agreement, which is set to expire on April 30, 1987. The plaintiff is the certified exclusive bargaining representative for certain employees at Petrolite, a Delaware corporation based in Missouri that manufactures chemical products. The disputes originated in late 1985 when Petrolite engaged Kelly Services, Inc. for temporary cleaning work, traditionally performed by bargaining unit employees, who were paid less than Kelly's employees. The union filed grievances alleging violations of wage provisions in the collective bargaining agreement, which Petrolite denied and refused to arbitrate.

Further grievances arose in March 1986 when Petrolite again employed Kelly Services for work within the bargaining unit. The union attempted to submit these matters to arbitration, but Petrolite declined participation. The union has not raised concerns regarding other companies contracted for various services at the plant. 

Jurisdiction for the case is established under Section 301 of the Labor-Management Relations Act, 1947. The court emphasizes that arbitration is a contractual matter; thus, a party cannot be compelled to arbitrate disputes it has not agreed to submit. The principle of arbitration rights derives from collective bargaining agreements. The court must determine whether the grievances fall within the scope of the arbitration clause, and unless explicitly stated otherwise, the issue of arbitration's applicability is for judicial resolution, not arbitration.

Courts do not evaluate the merits of grievances but must direct disputes to arbitration if a plausible argument for arbitration exists. A collective bargaining agreement with an arbitration clause creates a presumption of arbitrability, meaning arbitration should not be denied unless it can be positively assured that the clause does not cover the dispute. Any doubts should favor coverage. If no explicit exclusion of a grievance from arbitration is present, only compelling evidence can prevent arbitration. The evidence presented does not strongly oppose arbitration. Key provisions from the collective bargaining agreement include a recognition clause, which designates the Union as the exclusive bargaining agent for specified employees, and a scope of work clause, which defines the types of work included in the bargaining unit. Additionally, the management rights clause asserts the Company's authority over hiring, promoting, and managing employees, emphasizing that these rights remain with the Company unless explicitly restricted by the agreement.

Article XIII of the collective bargaining agreement addresses provisions related to part-time and temporary employees. The Company must pay these employees the appropriate rate for work within the bargaining unit. A temporary employee can work full-time but is limited to a maximum employment period of ninety days, while a part-time employee works fewer than forty hours a week and can be either temporary or permanent.

The core dispute between the plaintiff and defendant centers on whether these provisions apply to Kelly Services workers, who are not directly compensated by Petrolite, and whether Petrolite’s use of independent contractors, like Kelly Services, is restricted by the agreement. Article VII outlines grievance procedures, allowing arbitration for disputes over clause interpretation unless involving management rights.

The defendant contends that their use of Kelly Services workers falls under management rights, which are not subject to arbitration. However, the Court finds the definition of management rights ambiguous and notes that these rights must not conflict with other agreement provisions. The Court determines that the arbitration clause may indeed cover the dispute between the parties and finds insufficient evidence to exclude the claim from arbitration. Consequently, the Court rules in favor of the plaintiff.

Additionally, the Court overruled the plaintiff's objection to the defendant's Exhibit B, as it was established that the document was under the care of one of the defendant’s witnesses, thus providing proper foundation for its admission.

The court finds merit in many of the defendant's objections, noting that the joint stipulation between the parties makes numerous plaintiff exhibits irrelevant due to undisputed facts regarding grievances, though their legal basis remains contested. Plaintiff’s Exhibit Number One, detailing the collective bargaining agreement from 1981 to 1987, is relevant for demonstrating that key contractual provisions pertinent to arbitrability have remained largely unchanged, aiding in understanding historical patterns. However, the high burden of proof for non-arbitrability means this exhibit did not significantly influence the court's ruling. Exhibit 23, concerning subcontracting arbitration, was absent from the court file but is deemed crucial for establishing arbitrability; its absence does not detract from the plaintiff’s position. The court orders the defendant to submit underlying grievances to arbitration within 15 days and overrules the plaintiff’s objection to defendant’s Exhibit B. The defendant's objections to the plaintiff's proposed exhibits are granted, except for Exhibits One and 23, while the objection to Exhibit 23 is deemed moot. The court clarifies that Chapter 29 U.S.C. 159 does not apply, as it pertains to NLRB jurisdiction for bargaining unit clarifications, which is mischaracterized by the defendant regarding the inclusion of Kelly Services’ employees. The case centers solely on contract interpretation and arbitrability, rather than unit clarification. The defendant’s reliance on a non-discrimination clause within the agreement does not convincingly limit the applicability of the contract to employees outside the bargaining unit, and an arbitrator will consider this clause in relation to Kelly Services employees. The court acknowledges potential limitations on the defendant's use of subcontractors, which will be addressed in arbitration.