Houston Refining, L.P. v. United Steel, Paper & Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing
765 F.3d 396
| 5th Cir. | 2014Background
- Houston Refining, L.P. filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy and suspended matching contributions to employees’ 401(k) plans.
- Union filed a grievance under the 2006 CBA, later relying on an arbitration provision; settlement directed expedited arbitration under the applicable CBAs.
- Arbitrator Griffin ruled in favor of the Union, holding the 2006 CBA was in effect and that the 401(k) suspension violated Article 40; he deemed the grievance arbitrable and awarded monetary relief.
- District court granted summary judgment for Union on arbitrability and remedies, denied vacatur for Houston Refining, and remanded for clarification of damages.
- 2009 CBA never took effect; settlement and arbitration proceeded under the Settlement Agreement, with disputes over whether the 2006 CBA was in effect when the grievance arose.
- Court reverses and remands to determine arbitrability independently and to address the remedy consistent with the CBA’s terms.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §301(a) requires a valid labor contract for subject-matter jurisdiction | Houston Refining argues no jurisdiction without an existing CBA. | Union contends allegations of contract violation suffice to invoke §301(a) jurisdiction. | Yes; existence of a labor contract allegation suffices to establish jurisdiction. |
| Whether the district court properly deferred arbitrability to the arbitrator | Arbitrability not clearly and unmistakably delegated; district court must decide. | Settlement Agreement and conduct support delegation to arbitrator. | District court erred by not deciding arbitrability independently. |
| Whether the Union's grievance was arbitrable under the 2006 CBA | Grievance concerns 401(k) benefits and was not within the wage-related arbitration clause. | Arbitrability presumption applies; clause could cover benefits-related disputes. | Remand to district court to decide arbitrability independently; no final ruling on arbitrability. |
| Whether the arbitrator exceeded his authority under the CBA | Arbitrator exceeded by concluding arbitrability and misapplying the CBA. | Arbitrator acted within the contract’s scope; the dispute is arbitrable. | Not decided on this appeal; remand for independent arbitrability determination. |
| What standard of review governs the arbitrability determination | Arbitrator’s decision should be reviewed de novo if arbitrability is non-delegated. | Presumption of arbitrability governs review unless clear delegation. | Independent determination required with deferential review only if arbitrability was clearly delegated; otherwise standard follows proper framework on remand. |
Key Cases Cited
- Textron Lycoming Reciprocating Engine Div., AVCO Corp. v. United Auto., Aerospace & Agric. Implement Workers of Am., Int’l Union, 523 U.S. 653 (U.S. 1998) (allegation of contract violation supports jurisdiction; gateway rule through §301(a))
- AT&T Techs., Inc. v. Commc’ns Workers of Am., 475 U.S. 643 (U.S. 1986) (presumption of arbitrability; arbitral delegation requires clear language)
- First Options of Chi., Inc. v. Kaplan, 514 U.S. 938 (U.S. 1995) (gateway to arbitration and who decides arbitrability; deference framework)
- ConocoPhillips v. Local 13-0555 United Steelworkers Int’l Union, 741 F.3d 627 (5th Cir. 2014) (procedural framework for when arbitrability is delegated to arbitrator)
- Alexander v. Int’l Union of Operating Engineers, AFL-CIO, 624 F.2d 1235 (5th Cir. 1980) (jurisdiction under §301(a) depends on existence of a labor contract)