International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employee & Moving Picture Technicians, Artist, & Allied Crafts of the United States v. InSync Show Productions, Inc.
801 F.3d 1033
9th Cir.2015Background
- IATSE and InSync entered a 2003–2007 collective bargaining agreement (CBA) that included (1) an "evergreen" term provision stating the CBA would continue "from year to year thereafter" and (2) an arbitration/grievance clause covering claims that the employer "has violated or is violating the provisions of th[e] Agreement."
- Negotiations for a successor agreement occurred 2007–2009; InSync informed the union it would not renew and later said bargaining had reached impasse. InSync never signed a proposed 2008–2012 extension that mirrored the 2003–2007 terms.
- IATSE filed a grievance in 2011 asserting InSync was bound by the evergreen clause and sought arbitration; InSync contended both statutory and contractual claims were time-barred.
- In 2012 IATSE petitioned the district court under § 301 to compel arbitration; the district court ordered arbitration and "stayed" the case, declining to decide whether the evergreen clause had been canceled.
- InSync appealed the order compelling arbitration; the Ninth Circuit considered whether the order was appealable and whether the dispute over contract duration was for the arbitrator or the court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (IATSE) | Defendant's Argument (InSync) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the district court order compelling arbitration and staying the case appealable? | The petition to compel arbitration was the only relief sought, so the order is final and appealable under § 1291 and Goodall‑Sanford. | The FAA bars interlocutory appeals from stays under § 3 and § 16(b), so the stay renders the order nonappealable. | The order was final and appealable: the stay had no legal/practical effect and the petition to compel was the only matter before the court, so § 1291 jurisdiction (Goodall‑Sanford) applies. |
| Does the dispute over whether the CBA expired (evergreen clause) belong to an arbitrator or the court? | The arbitration clause covers grievances alleging employer violations of the Agreement, so an arbitrator should decide whether the evergreen clause kept the CBA in effect. | The CBA expired and bargaining reached impasse; that threshold question should be decided by the court, not arbitrator. | The question whether the CBA expired/was terminated is arbitrable. Under Interstate Distributor/Camping, the arbitration clause is broad enough to send the threshold expire/termination dispute to an arbitrator. |
| Is Litton controlling to require the court to decide expiration? | N/A (IATSE relied on arbitrability presumption). | Litton requires courts to resolve disputes about post‑expiration rights, so the court should decide. | Litton is distinguishable—there the parties agreed the contract had expired. Here the parties dispute whether the evergreen clause kept the contract in effect; that is for the arbitrator. |
| Were timeliness or estoppel defenses resolved by the district court and appealable now? | IATSE argued the grievance was timely after InSync’s unequivocal refusal; district court left timeliness/issues to arbitrator. | InSync argued statutory and contractual time bars and estoppel; some defenses were raised late or not below. | Timeliness under NLRA was rejected by InSync below but Ninth Circuit found IATSE filed within six months of unequivocal refusal; estoppel and other late‑raised defenses were waived and for the arbitrator where not preserved. |
Key Cases Cited
- Goodall‑Sanford v. United Textile Workers, 353 U.S. 550 (1957) (an order under § 301 compelling arbitration is a final decision under § 1291)
- Green Tree Financial Corp.‑Alabama v. Randolph, 531 U.S. 79 (2000) (a district court order compelling arbitration and dismissing claims is a "final decision" under § 16(a)(3); a mere stay ordinarily is not appealable)
- AT&T Technologies, Inc. v. Communications Workers, 475 U.S. 643 (1986) (arbitration is a matter of contract; courts decide arbitrability unless parties clearly and unmistakably delegate it)
- Brotherhood of Teamsters v. Interstate Distributor Co., 832 F.2d 507 (9th Cir. 1987) (when parties dispute whether a CBA expired or was terminated, the first inquiry is whether the arbitration clause covers that dispute)
- Camping Constr. Co. v. District Council of Iron Workers, 915 F.2d 1333 (9th Cir. 1990) (applies Interstate Distributor: customary broad arbitration clauses submit termination/repudiation disputes to arbitrators)
- Litton Fin. Printing Div. v. NLRB, 501 U.S. 190 (1991) (addressed rights after an agreement's undisputed expiration; distinguishable where expiration is contested)
- Granite Rock Co. v. Int’l Bhd. of Teamsters, 561 U.S. 287 (2010) (courts should order arbitration only where formation/enforceability of arbitration agreement is not in issue)