International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 18 v. Ohio Contractors Ass'n
689 F. App'x 390
| 6th Cir. | 2017Background
- Local 18 (union) and the Ohio Contractors Association (OCA) are parties to a collective-bargaining agreement that: assigns jurisdiction over certain equipment to the union and contains a wage schedule tied to equipment types.
- The Agreement contains two arbitration provisions: a specific new-equipment clause (for establishing pay classifications for previously unclassified equipment) and a broad general arbitration clause (for disputes about the Agreement’s meaning, intent, or application).
- Local 18 seeks arbitration to classify remote-controlled Brokk excavation equipment so its use would be limited to union members and a wage rate assigned; OCA refused to arbitrate.
- OCA’s defenses: Brokk equipment is not “new,” does not fall within the union’s jurisdiction, and is not used by an “employer” as defined in the Agreement.
- The district court granted Local 18’s summary-judgment motion and compelled arbitration; OCA appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Who decides arbitrability of whether the new-equipment clause applies? | Local 18: Arbitrator should decide under the general arbitration clause. | OCA: Court should decide whether the new-equipment clause applies before compelling arbitration. | Held: General clause clearly and unmistakably delegates the question to an arbitrator. |
| Does the dispute over Brokk equipment fall under the new-equipment clause? | Local 18: Brokk is new to highway projects, within union jurisdiction (performs same functions), and is used by an employer—so it triggers arbitration. | OCA: Brokk is not new (used elsewhere since 1990; in Ohio since 2011), differs from listed machines, and not used by an employer as defined. | Held: Whether the new-equipment clause applies is for the arbitrator to decide. |
| Must the union follow a grievance procedure before initiating arbitration? | Local 18: Proceeded under the new-equipment clause and relies on general clause to assign arbitrability to arbitrator. | OCA: Union failed to follow grievance steps required by the general arbitration clause. | Held: This argument was rejected as foreclosed by the earlier Hydro-Excavator decision; arbitrator must decide scope issues. |
| Can an arbitrator add a new wage classification to the Agreement? | Local 18: Arbitrator may establish a classification for unlisted equipment per the new-equipment clause. | OCA: Contract prohibits arbitrator from adding new classifications. | Held: Court follows Hydro-Excavator in rejecting OCA’s argument; arbitrator decides and the contractual limits do not bar arbitration of the issue. |
Key Cases Cited
- Great Earth Cos. v. Simons, 288 F.3d 878 (6th Cir. 2002) (standard of review and arbitration-framework principles)
- United Steelworkers of Am. v. Warrior & Gulf Navigation Co., 363 U.S. 574 (1960) (parties cannot be compelled to arbitrate disputes they have not agreed to submit)
- Howsam v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., 537 U.S. 79 (2002) (question of arbitrability is for judicial determination unless parties clearly and unmistakably provide otherwise)
- AT&T Tech., Inc. v. Communications Workers of Am., 475 U.S. 643 (1986) (same principle on judicial vs. arbitral determination of arbitrability)
- Local 18 Int’l Union of Operating Engineers v. Ohio Contractors Ass’n, 644 F. App’x 388 (6th Cir. 2016) (Hydro-Excavator) (on-point precedent holding general arbitration clause delegates scope questions to arbitrator)