Paper, Allied-Industrial Chemical & Energy Workers International Union, Local 4-12 v. Exxon Mobil Corp.
657 F.3d 272
5th Cir.2011Background
- Union sued ExxonMobil to compel arbitration of two CBAs grievances at Baton Rouge plant.
- Arbitration clause defines arbitrable grievance as a good faith claim that the other party violated a written provision of the Agreement.
- First grievance (contracting-out) arose in 1997 when ExxonMobil contracted loading/unloading of tank trucks and rail cars, displacing bargaining unit work but not layoffs.
- Second grievance (post-reduction) arose in 2002 when ExxonMobil reduced two and a half bargaining unit posts.
- District court granted summary judgment for Union on contracting-out but denied on post-reduction; rulings on summary judgment were appealed by both sides.
- Court must decide arbitrability under the agreement, considering good faith limitations and controlling precedents on when courts decide arbitrability vs. arbitrators.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether contracting-out is arbitrable under the CBA | Union argues 1131/1151 support arbitration as a good faith claim. | ExxonMobil contends 1131 expressly authorizes contracting out and 1151 cannot create arbitrability. | Contracting-out grievance not arbitrable |
| Whether post-reduction is arbitrable under the CBA | Union asserts 1151, plus 212, support arbitration as a good faith claim. | ExxonMobil contends lack of an express provision violated and 1151 cannot create arbitrability. | Post-reduction grievance not arbitrable |
| What standard governs arbitrability when agreement is not a boilerplate all-grievances clause | AT&T/Litton framework allows court to determine arbitrability notwithstanding merits. | Court should not redefine the scope beyond contract terms and precedents limit arbitrability. | Court determines arbitrability; merits may inform good faith but not override clear contract terms |
| Whether BROCWU forecloses reliance on Section 1151 for contracting-out | Union relies on 1151 to render contracting-out arbitrable as good faith claim. | BROCWU forecloses using 1151 to create arbitrability inconsistent with contract. | BROCWU forecloses relying on 1151 to make contracting-out arbitrable |
Key Cases Cited
- Litton Fin. Printing Div., A Div. of Litton Bus. Sys., Inc. v. NLRB, 501 U.S. 190 (1991) (arbitrability determined by court; merits not considered at gateway)
- AT&T Technologies, Inc. v. Communications Workers of America, 475 U.S. 643 (1986) (courts decide arbitrability questions; not meriting underlying claims)
- Stolt-Nielsen S.A. v. AnimalFeeds Int'l Corp., 559 U.S. 642 (2010) (no class arbitration without explicit agreement; limits on arbitration scope)
- Howsam v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., 537 U.S. 79 (2002) (gateway questions vs. procedural arbitrability; distinction in absence of agreement)
- Green Tree Financial Corp. v. Bazzle, 539 U.S. 444 (2003) (class arbitration as a procedural question; contextual for arbitrability)
- Baton Rouge Oil & Chemical Workers Union v. ExxonMobil Corp., 289 F.3d 373 (5th Cir. 2002) (BROCWU; arbitrability and section 1151 interpretation interplay)
- Humble Oil & Ref. Co. v. Indep. Indus. Workers Union, 337 F.2d 321 (5th Cir. 1964) (contract interpretation; broad terms susceptible to varying interpretations)
- Litton Fin. Printing Div., A Div. of Litton Bus. Sys., Inc. v. NLRB, 501 U.S. 190 (1991) (see above; repeated for emphasis on arbitrability determination by court)