Karl Schmidt Unisia, Inc. v. International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace, & Agricultural Implement Workers, UAW Local 2357
628 F.3d 909
7th Cir.2010Background
- In 2005 the parties negotiated a CBA containing a broad arbitration clause and a Thirty and Out provision in §13.01 for supplemental retirement benefits.
- The Pension Plan requires eligibility for Thirty and Out based on age and seniority; the Company later amended §5.03 unilaterally, tying eligibility to conditions ‘as of his date of termination.’
- §6.02 governs loss of employee seniority; §4.01 outlines a four-step grievance procedure with arbitration as the final step.
- In 2007, the Company announced layups; the Union feared denial of Thirty and Out to laid-off employees meeting §13.01 and initiated the grievance process.
- After two failed negotiation panels, the Company refused to arbitrate and sued in district court for a declaration that the grievance was not arbitrable, while the Union counterclaimed to compel arbitration.
- The district court granted summary judgment for arbitrability; the Company appeals.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the Union's grievance arbitrable under the CBA? | Union argues broad arbitration clause covers all CBA grievances. | Company asserts express or most-forceful-evidence exclusion from arbitration. | Grievance is arbitrable; no express exclusion. |
| Do the Pension Plan/retirement terms constitute most-forceful evidence to exclude arbitration? | N/A (Union relies on CBA terms; plan features do not negate arbitrability). | Pension Plan dispute-resolution and retirement committee signaling non-arbitrability. | Not the most forceful evidence; arbitration still presumed. |
| Does the Pension Plan’s dispute-resolution and committee structure conclusively defeat arbitrability? | N/A (Union relies on CBA provision negotiated for Thirty and Out). | Pension Plan procedures suggest exclusion from arbitration. | Insufficient to overcome presumption; arbitration remains appropriate. |
Key Cases Cited
- AT&T Techs., Inc. v. Communications Workers of Am., 475 U.S. 643 (1986) (arbitration-CL presumption; contract-based gateway)
- United Steelworkers Int'l Union v. TriMas Corp., 531 F.3d 531 (7th Cir. 2008) (presumption of arbitrability with broad clause)
- Warrior & Gulf Nav. Co. v. United States, 363 U.S. 574 (1960) (federal policy favoring arbitratability; broad clause aid)
- Nabisco, Local 680 v. Barisco, 833 F.2d 102 (7th Cir. 1987) (absence of pension terms in CBA supports non-arbitrability)
- Waukesha Engine Div., Dresser Indus., Inc. v. Int'l Ass'n of Machinists, 17 F.3d 196 (7th Cir. 1994) (limited references to pension plans do not incorporate plan terms)
- Local 232, Allied Indus. Workers v. Briggs & Stratton Corp., 837 F.2d 782 (7th Cir. 1988) (pension terms not integrated by passing reference)
- United Steelworkers of Am. v. Rohm & Haas Co., 522 F.3d 324 (3d Cir. 2008) (disability benefits not arbitrated absent specific CBA language)