Communications Workers of America, AFL-CIO v. AT&T Inc.
6f4th1344
| D.C. Cir. | 2021Background
- AT&T and the Communications Workers of America entered a 2017 Agreement that limited arbitration to disputes about the description of an appropriate bargaining unit and the definition of “non-management” employees.
- The Agreement requires arbitrable disputes to be submitted under the American Arbitration Association (AAA) rules.
- AAA Labor Arbitration Rule 3(a) assigns to the arbitrator the power to decide his or her own jurisdiction, including existence, scope, or validity of the arbitration agreement.
- After AT&T acquired Time Warner, the parties disputed which employees qualified as non-management; the Union demanded arbitration and AT&T refused.
- The Union sued in district court to compel arbitration; the district court held it could decide arbitrability and ruled the dispute was not arbitrable. The Union appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether incorporation of AAA rules clearly and unmistakably delegates arbitrability questions to an arbitrator | Yes — the Agreement incorporates AAA rules that assign threshold arbitrability questions to the arbitrator | No — the Agreement’s narrow scope (new-acquisition issues) shows no clear delegation | Yes — incorporation of AAA rules constitutes clear and unmistakable delegation to an arbitrator (court follows Chevron Corp.) |
| If delegable, whether a court may decide arbitrability anyway because the dispute concerns acquisitions | The court should not decide; the arbitrator must decide who decides | Court may decide because the dispute falls outside the Agreement’s limited arbitration categories | No — once delegated, courts lack power to decide arbitrability, even if the claim appears wholly groundless (following Henry Schein) |
Key Cases Cited
- Henry Schein, Inc. v. Archer & White Sales, Inc., 139 S. Ct. 524 (2019) (if parties delegate arbitrability to arbitrator, courts lack power to decide it)
- First Options of Chicago, Inc. v. Kaplan, 514 U.S. 938 (1995) (delegation requires clear and unmistakable evidence)
- BG Group PLC v. Republic of Argentina, 572 U.S. 25 (2014) (gateway arbitrability questions are presumptively for courts absent delegation)
- Chevron Corp. v. Ecuador, 795 F.3d 200 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (incorporation of arbitral rules that assign arbitrability to the tribunal constitutes clear delegation)
- Dist. No. 1, Pac. Coast Dist., Marine Eng’rs’ Ben. Ass’n, AFL-CIO v. Liberty Maritime Corp., 998 F.3d 449 (D.C. Cir. 2021) (AAA and UNCITRAL rules contain parallel delegation language)
- LLC SPC Stileks v. Republic of Moldova, 985 F.3d 871 (D.C. Cir. 2021) (same)