Ibew Local 1547 v. Alaska Communications Systems
20-35021
| 9th Cir. | Nov 12, 2021Background
- Alaska Communications and IBEW Local 1547 executed a collective bargaining agreement governing certain employees.
- Section 1.3 of the CBA states the Agreement is "applicable, within the State of Alaska," and contains a modification clause for expanding coverage.
- A group of employees working in Oregon sought voluntary recognition under the CBA; Alaska Communications refused, asserting the CBA applies only in Alaska.
- IBEW filed a grievance and demanded arbitration; Alaska Communications refused, arguing the arbitration clause does not cover out-of-state disputes.
- The district court held the dispute arbitrable, relying on Ninth Circuit precedent that arbitrability turns on the arbitration clause, not substantive provisions.
- The Ninth Circuit reviewed de novo and affirmed, holding the arbitration clause is broad and Section 1.3 does not show a clear intent to exclude out-of-state disputes from arbitration.
Issues
| Issue | IBEW's Argument | Alaska Communications' Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a grievance about applying the CBA to Oregon employees is arbitrable | Dispute requires interpretation or application of a specific CBA provision and falls within the broad arbitration clause | Section 1.3 limits the Agreement to Alaska and therefore excludes out-of-state disputes from arbitration | Arbitrable; arbitration clause covers the issue and Section 1.3 does not expressly exclude arbitration; presumption favors arbitration |
Key Cases Cited
- Dennis L. Christensen General Building Contractor, Inc. v. General Building Contractor, Inc., 952 F.2d 1073 (9th Cir. 1991) (arbitrability decided by the arbitration clause rather than substantive contract provisions)
- Westinghouse Hanford Co. v. Hanford Atomic Metal Trades Council, 940 F.2d 513 (9th Cir. 1991) (de novo review of arbitrability and guidance on clause interpretation)
- Haig Berberian, Inc. v. Cannery Warehousemen, 535 F.2d 496 (9th Cir. 1976) (supports broad interpretation of arbitration provisions)
- AT&T Technologies, Inc. v. Communications Workers of America, 475 U.S. 643 (1986) (presumption in favor of arbitration; exclusion requires clear evidence)
- United Steelworkers of America v. Warrior & Gulf Navigation Co., 363 U.S. 574 (1960) (establishes strong federal policy favoring arbitration)