United Steelworkers of America, Afl-Cio-Clc v. General Steel Industries, Inc., and the Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States
499 F.2d 215
8th Cir.
1974
Check Treatment

*2 GIBSON, and STE- Before BRIGHT Judges. PHENSON, Circuit Judge. STEPHENSON, Circuit appeal ques principal raises the Plan,1 tion of whether the Supplemental Unem ployment were which cov re ered but Employer-Union ferred to in an bargaining agreement, collective governed by the arbitration in the basic dispute giving rise this law arose a few suit months after signed. involved ments mid-De- cember, 1972, appellee (Employer) an- permanently nounced its decision to plants reasons, close two for economic including its St. Louis Car Division (Union) repre- plant appellant at which production sented maintenance unit. On December mailed letters each of its 500 em- already lay-off ployees in a status advis- them that their had been terminated effective December January 4, 1973, On the Union filed a grievance behalf all union members letters, received the termination .who alleging had violated existing bargaining agree- collective sending “by the ment of such notices purported to be actions taken thereunder, including attempted termi- nation of services and termi- nation of certain insurance and other benefits.” The did not right Employer’s plant to close the did “attempt but it contend that employeesprovided terminate benefits clauses, the Vacation Pension Plan and Unem- partici- Society Equitable named as a defendant and invited to Life Assurance pate requested (Equitable), arbitration. issued United States policies request Employer, was at the bargaining agreement incorporated interpre- and the ployment Benefit the collective of its contract was reference tation in direct vio- bargaining arbitration. agreement, [is] pro- of its lation Equitable’s rights and ob collective said articles vided under ligations cannot be determined in an ar agreement.” The bargaining proceeding bitration the labor willing to the Union stated that *3 contract, prop-. its motion to dismiss was steps the preliminary and refer waive all erly sustained. See United Steelwork under immediate arbitration matter to America, ers of et al. v. AFL-CIO Mes agree- Y, of the basic Section Article Industries, Inc., ker Bros. 457 F.2d 91 ment. (CA8 1972). agree upon parties were unable to The The to be arbitrated. Union the matters The district court further ordered ultimately of is demanded arbitration Employer the that and the Union sub- arising agreement, sues mit to arbitration those differences Pension which arose under the basic collective Supplemental Unemployment and the bargaining agreement, but that the dif- Benefit Plan.2 arising ferences under the Insurance Supple- the Pension agree Employer to' ar- The Unemployment mental Plan on these terms and Union bitrate should not be so submitted. court the district then commenced an action in it indicated so seeking reasoned it injunction compelling because court found, nothing “There is collec- arbitration of all matters bargaining tive indi- did not the Un- cates that right insurance ion’s to arbitrate its vacation and any way should in seniority However, claims. it contended bargaining to the terms of the relating collective that the claims to bene- Union’s agreement.” similarly It found with re- spelled separate agree- fits out in the spect to the Pension Plan. ments were not under ba- arbitrable sic compels. party “The law a to submit Equitable moved it that be dismissed his to arbitration if he ground party it was not a to Gateway has contracted to do so.” Coal bargaining agreement. the collective America, Co. v. United Mine Workers 414 94 U.S. L.Ed.2d cause was submitted to the dis- stipulation, affidavits, parties trict on court a Here the bargain- their briefs. The court bound 1972 collective dismissed the ac- against agreement. Among ground things Equitable upon tion other party provided adjustment it was not basic to collective for agreement, employees eligible 2. The affected Union’s statement the issues it are Supplemental wished to arbitrate was as follows: Bene- Whether, 1. under fits? the General Pension agreement, employees Plan and the 4. affected Whether affected enti- employees age pay tled continue to earn- and con- to vacation Vaca- the current any pur- Pay pension so, tinuous service for or all tion Year. If how should such poses, and, pay so, period if for what be calculated and to what extent Pay ap- time? the Minimum Vacation Guarantee Whether, plicable? Group under Company Plan and the affected Whether violated the ba- employees agreement by purporting continue their insurance cover- sic terminate age, and, so, employees by denying if the extent and duration of affected such coverage? opportunity such exercise sen- Whether, provided iority Un- under Article VI of agreement? Benefit Plan and the basic said putes grievances, which reads thereunder “shall be referred to impartial umpire selected Company further, Union”; and the any dispute or difference arise Should during negotiations Company and the Union change unsuccessfully proposed employed the Com- or its members appeals procedure application, pany meaning, as to provide Plan to that differences be operation any provisions of this or ferred to an arbitrator selected any Agreement, or trouble provided the manner in the basic suspen- arise, there shall be no kind ment; Supplemental Unemploy- lockout, work, sion or slowdown provides ment if a Benefit Plan shall be or- difference but such disagrees company employee with a following manner settled in the [.] termination dis- thereunder he should five-step pro- followed detailed There repre- cuss the matter with a adjustment of differences for the cedure sentative, and if not file a resolved writ- *4 Employer and the Union. the between request pro- ten on a form review binding- step provided ar- fifth The by company. vided the in as follows: and it reads bitration The Arti Union contends that since any grievance An Arbitrator to whom agree VIII, IX and X of the cles basic with in accordance be submitted shall specific ment make to the reference shall, provisions in- the of this Section they plans,3 three to considered be necessary the de- to sofar shall be as governed by in and as included' the basic grievance, of have termination such authority interpret apply the to and fundamental The Agreement, but this Employer in- and Union in this authority in to alter shall not have volves the Union’s that contention any way conditions the terms and employees whose work discontinued Agreement. Only questions as to this by closing status, “lay were in off” interpretation application of or or “terminated,” than rather and accord- this compliance provisions of with the ingly they con- were entitled to benefits Agreement may to an submitted be tractually promised em- to laid-off Arbitrator. ployees. a resolution involves below, urges, Employer it did The as question critical the Em- of whether the Pension that the Insurance ployer’s closing plant entitled it to Unemploy- Plan and the thereby terminate the separate ment Benefit Plan are prive they them of benefits which subject not to the arbitra- ments and are if, claims, they as the Union enjpy provided procedure tion for in basic following lay-off agreement mained in a status agreement; separate that closing. provides that dis- on the Pension Plan agreement separate Agreement, three refers

3. The basic a shall covered plans May 31, as in effect continued until ARTICLE X ARTICLE VIII SUPPLEMENTAL PLAN INSURANCE BENEFITS UNEMPLOYMENT Company agrees the Insurance The that Supple- Company agrees The that April 29, is which as amended mental separate Agreement, shall be covered April 29, 1972, is covered amended which May 31, continued effect until separate Agreement, be contin- shall subject, IX ARTICLE April ued effect until PENSION PLAN any changes however, ne- that Company agrees expiration gotiated Labor this Agreement. April 29, 1972, is as amended resolved of cover- reading should be in favor A age. ques- of America United Steelworkers answer indicates Navigation Co., & Gulf Warrior interpreting found in tion is to 1347, 1353, 574, 582-583, 80 U.S. agreement and is thus basic 4 L.Ed.2d 1409 arbitration thereunder. say positive cannot with assurance We general provides: Pension Plan suscepti- basic is interpretation of an covers the ble CON- OF DETERMINATION asserted SERVICE TINUOUS appro- The district court will enter an 1(b) bro- shall be Continuous service directing priate order by: ken proceed with selection of an with arbitrator accordance (1) (if ter- and when Termination proceed arbi- pursuant to the Ba- mination occurs dispute, tration all matters in includ- Agreement); sic itself. part, Affirmed and re- reversed plans require The other likewise appropriate manded for in accord- action interpretation “termination” opinion. ance with this taxed 75 Costs plan.4 the critical issue per per Steel, cent to General cent involving posed the Union’s United Steelworkers. layoff of termination *5 interpretation of to be determined Judge GIBSON, (concurring). Circuit provisions we of the basic entire are satisfied that I concur result reached as should be submitted to arbitration However, majority. emphasize I wish . provided thereunder. I view as the for what basis narrow

holding disputes relative Trilogy,5 Steelworkers we Pension, and taught presumption are there is a arbi- Benefit Plans are arbitrability disputes: of agree labor in case. I with trable this cannot separate the Union’s contention that particular An order arbitrate plans part can be of considered as grievance should not denied unless agreement. Nor do I think the positive it said with assurance upon a cision in this case rest the arbitration clause is not sus- general arbitrability presumption of of ceptible interpretation of an that cov- disputes. labor ers asserted Doubts Group part 4. 8. DEFINITIONS as Plan reads in fol- Service”: continuous lows : “Continuous employee Employment service of an as determined Termination of [10.10] Company’s your employment purposes terminated, (when pension If under non- is your pension plan. contributory in continuous is broken ac- service provisions cordance with the Labor Ameri America v. Steelworkers of United coverage all Pro- under Agreement) Manufacturing 564, Co., 80 S. can 363 U.S. gram will end at such termi- time of (1960) ; 1343, 4 L.Ed.2d United Ct. nation, except as in the section of noted & Gulf of America v. Warrior Steelworkers Navigation Co., this booklet Insurance” entitled “Life 1347, 574, 80 S.Ct. 363 U.S. paragraph “Maternity 1.1 and and Ob- (1960) ; 4 L.Ed.2d 1409 United Steelworkers paragraph stetrical Benefits” Enterprise 8.3. Car & v. Wheel of America Supplemental Unemployment Corp., Plan 4 L.Ed.2d 363 U.S. as reads language clear from the

I think it is employed parties in the basic LUCIE, Plaintiff-Appellant, Harold agreement consideration separate plans that the provisions of the KLEEN-LEEN, INC., Defendant- independent plans in fact Appellee. part of the basic be considered a cannot No. 73-1626. Further, my view, agreement. Appeals, States United Court provisions arbitration clause Seventh Circuit. ques- “[o]nly the basic Argued April application interpretation or tions as to May 29, Decided provisions compliance of or Agreement may an submitted to ordinary would, in dis- Arbitrator” eligibility

pute for benefits as separate plans, bar resort to

one of the provisions of the basic

the arbitration

agreement. within

separate govern plans would resolution disputes. types

of these

However, present one that arises not under the depends upon

plans. Its resolution “layed-off”

affected status “terminated”, that can interpretation be answered sepa- Each of eligibility upon plans

rate conditions *6 service,

employee’s and each continuous

plan provides the determination of

continuous service is to be accordance

ment. The relative to here separate plans how this concerns calculated.

continuous service is only made can such calculation provisions of the

with reference to the one aris- agreement that the agreed has arbitrate. any easily separate plans “terminated” once their status as

solved Directing “layed-off” is determined. questions con-

arbitration on all costs, energies, parties’ reduce

serve the permit speedy determination

rights, benefits, in this and liabilities

industrial