Local 18 International Union of Operating Engineers v. Ohio Contractors Ass'n
644 F. App'x 388
6th Cir.2016Background
- Local 18 (union) and the Ohio Contractors Association (OCA, employer association) are parties to a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) governing equipment classifications and wage rates; Exhibit A lists equipment and rates.
- Hydro-Excavators are not listed in Exhibit A; Local 18 alleges Hydro-Excavators are within its jurisdiction and sought negotiation of classification and wage under Paragraph 30 (New Equipment Rate). OCA refused.
- Paragraph 30 provides that if no agreement on a new rate is reached, the dispute is referred to Step 4 of the grievance procedure in Paragraph 108 (final and binding arbitration).
- OCA treated the dispute as outside Paragraph 30 (a jurisdictional dispute) and declined arbitration; Local 18 filed to compel arbitration and amended to a §301 LMRA breach-of-contract claim after removal to federal court.
- The district court dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6), concluding Hydro-Excavators were not within the union’s jurisdiction and thus the dispute was not arbitrable; the Sixth Circuit reversed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the complaint states a plausible §301 claim to compel arbitration | Local 18: complaint alleges Hydro-Excavators are within union jurisdiction and OCA’s refusal to arbitrate breaches CBA | OCA: facts show Hydro-Excavators are outside union jurisdiction; district court may resolve arbitrability | Reversed: complaint plausibly alleges arbitrability; dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) was improper |
| Whether a court or arbitrator decides if equipment is “within the jurisdiction” for Paragraph 30 | Local 18: Paragraph 108’s broad grievance clause sends disputes about CBA meaning/application (including jurisdiction) to arbitration | OCA: Paragraph 30’s jurisdictional requirement is substantive and for courts; Paragraph 108 is limited to employee grievances | Held: Although Paragraph 30 alone does not delegate its own arbitrability, Paragraph 108 clearly and broadly delegates disputes over meaning/application to arbitration, so an arbitrator should presumptively decide jurisdiction |
| Whether the district court properly relied on extrinsic facts in 12(b)(6) ruling | Local 18: district court improperly considered matters outside the complaint (e.g., past bargaining history, use by non-union workers) | OCA: those factual points show parties historically treated Hydro-Excavators as outside jurisdiction | Held: Court erred in relying on extrinsic facts; only complaint allegations control on Rule 12(b)(6) |
| Whether other CBA provisions (¶109 ¶110) bar arbitration here | Local 18: ¶109’s limitation on arbitrator authority and ¶110 jurisdictional-board provision do not remove this dispute from ¶108 arbitration | OCA: arbitration would effectively alter the CBA and implicate jurisdictional-dispute procedures | Held: ¶109 does not preclude arbitrator resolution of ¶108 disputes; ¶110 (impartial board) does not apply because it concerns disputes with other unions and requires re-establishment conditions not met |
Key Cases Cited
- Howsam v. Dean Witter Reynolds, 537 U.S. 79 (procedural-arbitrability issues for arbitrator)
- AT&T Technologies, Inc. v. Communications Workers of America, 475 U.S. 643 (substantive scope of arbitration is for courts unless clear delegation)
- John Wiley & Sons, Inc. v. Livingston, 376 U.S. 543 (arbitrator decides whether pre-arbitration steps satisfied when contract delegates)
- United Steelworkers of America v. Saint-Gobain Ceramics & Plastics, Inc., 505 F.3d 417 (Sixth Circuit en banc on procedural vs substantive arbitrability)
- Chambers v. HSBC Bank USA, N.A., 796 F.3d 560 (standard of review for Rule 12(b)(6))