119 F. Supp. 3d 307
E.D. Pa.2015Background
- Cascades Tissue Group (employer) and United Steelworkers Local No. 1448 (union) are parties to a CBA containing a multi-step grievance procedure culminating in optional arbitration.
- Employee Walter Puchalski was suspended and then discharged in June 2013; the union filed a grievance and pursued the termination through the CBA’s steps one and three, both of which were denied.
- The CBA’s Step 4 required the union membership to vote at a regular monthly meeting within 60 days whether to submit a termination grievance to arbitration; the union did not hold such a vote or notify the employer within that deadline.
- The union nevertheless filed a demand for arbitration with the AAA 127 days after the step-three denial; the employer refused to arbitrate and sued for declaratory relief, seeking to enjoin arbitration.
- The union counterclaimed to compel arbitration, admitting it had not held the Step 4 vote but contending that the vote requirement is now an internal union matter and that procedural prerequisites should be decided by an arbitrator.
- The district court considered cross-motions for judgment on the pleadings and held the underlying dispute (just-cause termination) is subject to the CBA’s arbitration clause, and the question whether the union failed to follow Step 4 is a procedural arbitrability question for the arbitrator.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court should enjoin arbitration because the union bypassed Step 4 of the grievance procedure | Cascades: union’s failure to hold the Step 4 vote and to notify employer within 60 days forecloses arbitration | Union: vote requirement is internal governance; procedural preconditions to arbitrate are for the arbitrator to decide | Court: Denied injunction; question is procedural arbitrability and for the arbitrator to decide |
| Whether the dispute is substantively arbitrable under the CBA | Cascades: focuses on procedural default but concedes termination grievance falls under CBA | Union: termination grievance is covered by the CBA’s grievance/arbitration clause | Court: Held the termination dispute is clearly covered and substantively arbitrable |
| Whether courts or arbitrators decide procedural prerequisites to arbitration | Cascades: asks court to rule that failure to comply bars arbitration | Union: procedural compliance issues should be resolved by arbitrator | Court: Procedural-arbitrability questions (compliance or excuse) are for the arbitrator |
| Whether a court may resolve procedural noncompliance when language is clear | Cascades: contends CBA language prevents arbitration absent Step 4 compliance | Union: alternative grounds (substantial compliance, internal governance changes, employer conduct, lack of prejudice) for excusing formal compliance | Court: Language not absolutely compelled; arbitrator may find compliance excused or substantial; refer to arbitration |
Key Cases Cited
- John Wiley & Sons, Inc. v. Livingston, 376 U.S. 543 (Sup. Ct. 1964) (procedural prerequisites to arbitration are ordinarily for the arbitrator once parties are obligated to arbitrate)
- AT & T Technologies, Inc. v. Communications Workers of America, 475 U.S. 643 (Sup. Ct. 1986) (courts decide substantive arbitrability absent clear and unmistakable delegation to arbitrator)
- United Steelworkers of America v. Warrior & Gulf Navigation Co., 363 U.S. 574 (Sup. Ct. 1960) (presumption of arbitrability; doubts resolved in favor of arbitration)
- Chauffeurs, Teamsters & Helpers, Local No. 765 v. Stroehmann Bros. Co., 625 F.2d 1092 (3d Cir. 1980) (procedural disputes over arbitration prerequisites should be left to arbitrator when underlying grievance is arbitrable)
- Bell Atlantic-Pa., Inc. v. Communications Workers of Am., 164 F.3d 197 (3d Cir. 1999) (distinguishing substantive and procedural arbitrability)
- Rite Aid of Pa., Inc. v. United Food & Commercial Workers Union, Local 1776, 595 F.3d 128 (3d Cir. 2010) (recognizing strong federal policy favoring arbitration of labor disputes)