Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-89-01126/USCOURTS-ca10-89-01126-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 720
Nature of Suit: Labor Management Relations Act
Cause of Action: 

---

FILED 

Ufiited States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuir 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

MAY 2 1990 

INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL ) 

WORKERS LOCAL UNION 111, ) 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellee, ) 

) 

v. ) 

) 

PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF COLORADO, ) 

) 

Defendant-Appellant. ) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

.ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 89-1126 

(D.C. No. 88-B-1447) 

( D. Colo. ) 

Before BRORBY, EBEL, Circuit Judges, and JOHNSON**, District 

Judge. 

**Honorable Alan B. Johnson, District 

District Court for the District of 

designation. 

Judge, 

Wyoming, 

United States 

sitting by 

Public Service Company of Colorado (Company) appeals the 

district court's order vacating an arbitration award and ordering 

the Company to proceed to arbitration with the International 

Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local No. 111 (Union) 

concerning a remedy for the Company's illegal conduct. 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall 

not be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, 

except for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of 

the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 

36. 3. 

Appellate Case: 89-1126 Document: 01019969752 Date Filed: 05/02/1990 Page: 1 
The matter came before the district court on cross motions 

for summary judgment based on a stipulated record. The court 

granted the Union's motion for summary judgment and denied that of 

the Company. Our review of the district court's action is de novo 

and we apply the same standard as did the trial court in 

considering a motion for summary judgment. United Food & 

Commercial Workers Int'l Union Local 7 v. Gold Star Sausage Co., 

Nos. 88-1951 and 89-1199, slip op. at 5 (10th Cir. Mar. 1, 1990). 

The parties to this action were also parties to a collective 

bargaining agreement. A dispute arose as to whether the Company 

had violated the agreement by assigning supervisory duties to 

management personnel. The matter was eventually referred to an 

arbitrator. The parties were unable to stipulate to the precise 

issue to be addressed by the arbitrator, however, and neither 

party's initial submission mentioned the issue of remedy. The 

issue as ultimately framed by the arbitrator in his award, and 

based on the parties' submissions, was "whether the company 

violated the collective bargaining agreement in effecting a 

changeover from working foremen to maintenance supervisors?" 

After a hearing, the arbitrator ruled that the Company had 

violated the terms of the agreement and remanded the dispute to 

the parties to negotiate a settlement. When these negotiations 

failed, the Union demanded arbitration of the issue of remedy 

before a new arbitration panel; the Company refused, insisting 

that the matter be resubmitted to the previous arbitrator. Upon 

resubmittal, the original arbitrator, in a supplemental award, 

2 

Appellate Case: 89-1126 Document: 01019969752 Date Filed: 05/02/1990 Page: 2 
concluded that he had jurisdiction to consider the question and 

that no remedy was appropriate under the circumstances. From that 

determination, the Union filed its complaint in the district court 

seeking redress. 

The district court found that the issue as submitted to the 

arbitrator did not include the issue of remedy. The court 

therefore vacated the supplemental award and ordered the parties 

to arbitrate the issue of remedy. 

The district court based its ruling on Retail Store Employees 

Union Local 782 v. Sav-On Groceries, 508 F.2d 500 (10th Cir. 

1975). Because we find Retail Store Employees to be controlling, 

we affirm the judgment of the district 

Employees, this court held that a 

court. In 

question 

Retail Store 

submitted for 

arbitration regarding whether the employer had exercised fairness 

in dealing with an employee did not inherently include authority 

for the arbitrator to fashion a remedy. Id. at 503. In reaching 

this conclusion, we noted that the question submitted to the 

arbitrator was in no sense vague, and that, therefore, the 

arbitrator had gone beyond the area "marked out for consideration" 

in awarding the employee back pay. Accordingly, we found the 

award unenforceable and upheld the trial court's vacation of the 

arbitration award. Id. 

The Company here argues that the parties by their conduct 

demonstrated that the question of remedy was at issue. The 

Company, however, cites no cases holding that a clearly worded and 

unambiguous submission, framed by an arbitrator after 

3 

Appellate Case: 89-1126 Document: 01019969752 Date Filed: 05/02/1990 Page: 3 
consideration of the parties' submissions, can be modified by the 

parties' arguable attempts to raise an additional issue. We think 

it is immaterial whether the parties included the issue in 

posthearing briefs or discussed the matter before the arbitrator 

or the court. "[T]he arbitrator [is] restricted to deciding only 

those issues submitted. II Id. 

The Company also argues that it was error for the district 

court to order the parties to new arbitration on the issue of 

remedy. We disagree. In its brief, the Company argues that it 

cannot be compelled to arbitrate this issue if it has not agreed 

to do so. While we agree with the proposition that arbitration is 

a matter of contract, and that a party cannot be required to 

submit a matter to arbitration that he has not agreed to submit, 

United Steelworkers v. Warrior & Gulf Navigation Co., 363 U.S. 

574, 582 (1960), we think that the Company is not focusing broadly 

enough on the universe of matters delegated to arbitration by the 

collective bargaining agreement. 

Article XXVIII of the agreement provides: 

In the event a dispute, a misunderstanding, or 

controversy shall arise between the parties hereto 

during the life of this Agreement relating to hours, 

wages, or conditions of employment, as covered by this 

agreement, which shall not be settled through grievance 

procedure, then, and in that event, Company and Union 

shall each select an Arbitrator within forty-eight (48) 

hours (excluding holidays and Sundays) after either one 

of the parties shall have notified the other in writing 

of its desire to submit the matter to arbitration, and 

the two (2) thus chosen shall select a third, and the 

three (3) thus chosen shall constitute a Board of 

Arbitration to hear and determine the matter of 

controversy. The finding or award of said Board of 

Arbitration shall be final and conclusive upon the 

4 

Appellate Case: 89-1126 Document: 01019969752 Date Filed: 05/02/1990 Page: 4 
parties hereto, subject to such rules and regulations as 

any Federal Agency having jurisdiction may impose. 

This is a broad arbitration provision. By its terms, it covers 

any dispute, misunderstanding, or controversy related to hours, 

wages, or conditions of employment. The issue of how to remedy 

the Company's illegal conduct is well within the definition of a 

dispute related to conditions of employment. The parties agree in 

the stipulated record that the Union had demanded arbitration of 

the remedy issue and that this demand had been refused by the 

Company. The Union's recourse, then, is to apply for a court 

order compelling arbitration. While a court may not weigh the 

merits of a grievance brought under a contract providing for 

arbitration, it is empowered to ascertain "whether the party 

seeking arbitration is making a claim which on its face is 

governed by the contract." United Steelworkers v. American Mfg. 

Co., 363 U.S. 564, 568 (1960). Indeed, the courts have a positive 

duty to decide whether the party opposing the arbitration has 

breached a duty to arbitrate. Warrior & Gulf Navigation Co., 353 

U.S. at 582. The Supreme Court has mandated that "[a]n order to 

arbitrate the particular grievance should not be denied unless it 

may be said with positive assurance that the arbitration clause is 

not susceptible of an interpretation that covers the asserted 

dispute." Id. at 582-83. We are confident that the broad 

language of the arbitration provision in the collective bargaining 

agreement is easily susceptible to an interpretation that covers 

5 

Appellate Case: 89-1126 Document: 01019969752 Date Filed: 05/02/1990 Page: 5 
' . 

this dispute and that the district court did not err in ordering 

furt her arbitration. 

The judgment of the United States District Court for the 

District of Colorado is AFFIRMED. 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

PER CURIAM 

6 

Appellate Case: 89-1126 Document: 01019969752 Date Filed: 05/02/1990 Page: 6