ConocoPhillips, Inc. v. Local 13-0555 United Steelworkers International Union
741 F.3d 627
| 5th Cir. | 2014Background
- USW appeals district court vacatur of an arbitral award in Buller v. ConocoPhillips regarding Buller’s termination after failing a workplace drug test.
- Buller claimed the test result was caused by expired prescription cough medication previously prescribed to him.
- The CBA requires arbitration for grievances related to interpretation/implementation, but disallows arbitration for discharge after a confirmed positive drug test, except for chain-of-custody issues.
- USW argued the dispute was about unjust discharge and thus arbitrable under the grievance procedure.
- The arbitrator ruled Buller’s discharge was wrongful, found arbitrability, and issued an award in USW’s favor; the district court vacated the award.
- The court reviews arbitrability decisions de novo and considers whether the parties clearly and unmistakably submitted arbitrability to the arbitrator.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the parties clearly and unmistakably submitted arbitrability to the arbitrator | USW contends Conoco consented to arbitrator ruling on arbitrability | Conoco did not clearly consent to arbitrate arbitrability and objected to beyond-chain-of-custody issues | No clear and unmistakable consent; courts decide arbitrability |
| Whether Buller’s discharge was arbitrable under the CBA | USW argues discharge could be challenged under arbitration for unjust termination | Conoco argues discharge for a positive drug test is not subject to arbitration except chain-of-custody | Discharge not arbitrable; district court’s determination upheld |
Key Cases Cited
- First Options of Chicago, Inc. v. Kaplan, 514 F.3d 938 (1995) (clear and unmistakable consent standard for arbitrability)
- Gen. Motors Corp. v. Pamela Equities Corp., 146 F.3d 242 (5th Cir. 1998) (burden on party to show clearly and unmistakably submitted arbitrability)
- Rock-Tenn Co. v. United Paperworkers Int’l Union, 184 F.3d 330 (4th Cir. 1999) (illustrates consent to arbitrate arbitrability through conduct at arbitration)
- Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co. v. Utility Workers Union of America, 440 F.3d 809 (6th Cir. 2006) (failure to object to arbitrator’s authority bears on consent to arbitrability)
- AT&T Technologies, Inc. v. Communications Workers of Am., 475 U.S. 643 (1986) (arbitrator's jurisdiction and powers limit reliance on arbitration.)