Brent Electric Company v. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, 110 F.4th 1196

Brent Electric Company and Local Union No. 584 (IBEW) had a long-standing labor relationship governed by a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) negotiated by NECA as Brent's agent.
The 2018 CBA included an interest-arbitration clause allowing unresolved negotiation issues (for a successor CBA) to be unilaterally submitted to binding arbitration before the Council on Industrial Relations (CIR).
Brent attempted to terminate the CBA by revoking the Letter of Assent and objected to the inclusion of several provisions (claimed permissive or illegal subjects of bargaining) in a successor agreement.
After deadlocked negotiations, the Union unilaterally submitted unresolved issues to the CIR, which imposed a new CBA including the objected-to provisions.
Brent filed suit to vacate the arbitration award, arguing the imposition of permissive subjects violated its statutory rights and public policy. The district court enforced the award.
On appeal, Brent challenged the district court’s decision, raising questions about arbitrability, contractual waiver of statutory rights, and public policy.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Arbitrability of Permissive Subjects in Interest Arbitration	Brent: Did not agree to arbitrate/permissive subjects were excluded	Union: Arbitration clause covers all unresolved issues	The broad clause unambiguously includes permissive subjects
Statutory Right to Refuse Permissive Subjects in Arbitration	Brent: Statutory right to refuse; need clear waiver	Union: No such right applies; contractually bound	No statutory right was infringed; waiver doctrine inapplicable
Public Policy Against Imposition of Permissive Subjects	Brent: Imposing such subjects in arbitration violates public policy	Union: No dominant public policy precludes enforcement here	No explicit public policy bars enforcing contractual agreement
CIR’s Authority Under the Federal Arbitration Act	Brent: CIR exceeded authority by imposing impermissible terms	Union: CIR acted within terms of valid arbitration agreement	CIR did not exceed its contractual or statutory authority

United Steelworkers of Am. v. Warrior & Gulf Nav. Co., 363 U.S. 574 (1960) (establishes presumption of arbitrability in CBAs; exclusion requires forceful evidence)
AT&T Techs., Inc. v. Commc’ns Workers of Am., 475 U.S. 643 (1986) (court decides arbitrability absent clear and unmistakable commitment)
N.L.R.B. v. Wooster Div. of Borg-Warner Corp., 356 U.S. 342 (1958) (differentiates between mandatory and permissive bargaining subjects)
United Paperworkers Int’l Union v. Misco, 484 U.S. 29 (1987) (arbitral awards set aside only for violation of explicit, well-defined public policy)
McElroy’s, Inc., 500 F.3d 1093 (10th Cir. 2007) (enforces interest-arbitration clauses in pre-hire labor agreements)
E. Associated Coal Corp. v. United Mine Workers of Am., Dist. 17, 531 U.S. 57 (2000) (clarifies public policy exception to arbitration awards)