Laborers' International Union of North America Local 1353 v. West Virginia American Water Company, 2:18-cv-01522

Background

The Union (LIUNA Local 1353) and West Virginia American Water (WV American Water) were parties to a 2017–2022 collective bargaining agreement (CBA) containing a multi-step grievance procedure and a broad arbitration clause (Article V).
Jimmy Mitchell, a Union member, was terminated on July 16, 2018 for allegedly removing a safety device from his work vehicle.
The Union filed a written grievance seeking reinstatement and arguing the discipline was too harsh; it proceeded through steps one and two. WV American Water denied the grievance each time as non-grievable under the CBA.
Article XVII § 17.1 of the CBA expressly states that knowingly disabling safety devices or knowingly falsifying records is grounds for dismissal and that the substantive penalty for such conduct is conclusively sufficient — the employee may only grieve whether the act occurred, not the penalty.
WV American Water refused to proceed to step three/arbitration, contending the grievance challenged the discipline for excluded conduct; the Union then sued to compel arbitration under § 301 and the Declaratory Judgment Act.
WV American Water moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim; the Court considered the CBA and grievance documents and granted the motion, holding the grievance falls within the CBA’s arbitration exclusion and is not arbitrable.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Mitchell grievance is arbitrable under the CBA	The grievance challenges both the discipline and the finding that Mitchell removed a safety device; thus it is subject to arbitration under the CBA’s grievance/arbitration procedures	The grievance as filed only contests the severity of discipline for conduct that Article XVII §17.1 conclusively deems just cause for dismissal; such disciplinary disputes are excluded from arbitration	Court held non-arbitrable: the grievance, as written, challenges discipline for excluded conduct and falls within §17.1’s exclusion, so dismissal is warranted
Whether the Court or an arbitrator decides threshold arbitrability	Union implies arbitrability should be resolved in arbitration	Cites absence of a clear delegation clause; courts decide arbitrability	Court decided arbitrability itself because the CBA does not clearly delegate that question to an arbitrator
Whether the Union can amend or reinterpret the written grievance in litigation to create arbitrability	Union argues its litigation brief shows it disputed the factual finding (i.e., that Mitchell removed the safety device) and thus the grievance includes arbitrable factual issues	WV American Water argues the Union cannot retroactively alter the written grievance after being told the grievance was non-grievable; the written grievance controls	Court held Union cannot retroactively supply new factual bases in response brief; the written grievance controls and lacks assertions that the act did not occur
Whether dismissal for non-arbitrability at Rule 12(b)(6) stage was appropriate given documents considered	Union contends factual issues remain	WV American Water points to CBA language and grievance record integral to the complaint allowing resolution as a matter of law	Court treated CBA and grievance as integral, considered them, and found dismissal appropriate because the exclusion is clear and unambiguous

Key Cases Cited

Cumberland Typographical Union No. 244 v. The Times & Alleganian Co., 943 F.2d 401 (4th Cir. 1991) (arbitrability governed by contract; courts decide arbitrability absent clear delegation)
AT&T Technologies, Inc. v. Communications Workers of America, 475 U.S. 643 (U.S. 1986) (party cannot be compelled to arbitrate absent contractual agreement; courts decide threshold arbitrability unless clearly delegated)
Nolde Brothers, Inc. v. Local No. 358, Bakery & Confectionery Workers Union, 430 U.S. 243 (U.S. 1977) (no arbitration without contractual obligation)
United Steelworkers v. Enterprise Wheel & Car Corp., 363 U.S. 593 (U.S. 1960) (strong federal policy favoring arbitration of collective-bargaining grievances except where agreement excludes the matter)
United Steelworkers v. Warrior & Gulf Navigation Co., 363 U.S. 574 (U.S. 1960) (arbitration favored for general contract disputes; exclusions control)
United Steelworkers v. American Manufacturing Co., 363 U.S. 564 (U.S. 1960) (same principle favoring arbitration subject to contract terms)
Peoples Security Life Insurance Co. v. Monumental Life Insurance Co., 867 F.2d 809 (4th Cir. 1989) (arbitration clause should be interpreted to cover asserted disputes unless clearly inapplicable)