Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-91-01266/USCOURTS-ca10-91-01266-0/pdf.json

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

---

FIL~ D 

United St.ates Court of Appanl:3 Tenth Circuil: 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

MAY 2 G 1992 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

LOCAL 7 UNITED FOOD AND COMMERCIAL 

WORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v . 

ALBERTSON'S INC., a Delaware 

corporation, 

Defendant-Appellee. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) No. 91-1266 

) (D.C. No. 91-S-274) 

) (D. Colo.) 

) 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before MOORE, TACHA, and BRORBY, Circuit Judges . 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

- - ---- -- has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of this appeal . See Fed. R. App. P. 

34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9 . The case is therefore ordered 

submitted without oral argument . 

United Food and Commercial Workers Union, Local No. 7 (Union) 

appeals the district court's grant of summary judgment holding 

* 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 estoppal. 10th Cir. R. 

36.3. 

Appellate Case: 91-1266 Document: 010110254277 Date Filed: 05/26/1992 Page: 1
that Albertson's, Inc. is not required to arbitrate certain 

grievances. The issue presented is whether Albertson's is 

required to arbitrate a dispute alleging that it violated the 

grievance and arbitration procedure . We exercise jurisdiction 

under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, vacate the judgment of the district court, 

and remand for further proceedings consistent with this order and 

judgment. 

The Union and Albertson's are parties to various collective 

bargaining agreements covering grocery store workers . Procedures 

for resolving disputes are set forth in each of the agreements. 

The agreements contain the following arbitration clause: 

Should any dispute or complaint arise over the 

interpretation or application of this Agreement, there 

shall be an earnest effort on the part of the parties to 

settle such promptly through the following steps, and 

failure to follow the procedures set forth shall result 

in forfeiture of the grievance. 

Appellant ' s App . , Art . 49, § 133 of Exhibits M, N, O, P, and Q; 

Art . 49, S 128 of Exhibits Rand S; Art . 45, § 123 of Exhibits T, 

U, V, W, X, Y, Z, and AA. 

This dispute began when the Union filed various grievances on 

behalf of individual Union members, alleging violations of the 

collective bargaining agreement . 1 According to the Union, 

Albertson's failed to cooperate in selecting arbitrators to 

arbitrate those grievances. Consequently, the Union filed 

grievances alleging that Albertson's had violated the contract 

1 The subject matter of the i nitial grievances is immaterial to 

the issue raised here. Albertson's has never refused to arbitrate 

those griev~nces. 

2 

Appellate Case: 91-1266 Document: 010110254277 Date Filed: 05/26/1992 Page: 2
clause requiring prompt settlement of disputes. The district 

court characterized the subject grievances as "group grievances " 

and determined that Albertson's had not agreed to process the 

initial grievances in the extraordinary manner of grouping them 

together for more efficient processing. 

The parties agreed that no genuine issue of material fact 

exists. Both moved for summary judgment . Therefore, we examine 

whether either party is entitled to summary judgment as a matter 

of law. Employee Trustees of Eighth Dist. Elec . Pension Fund v . 

Employer Trustees of Eighth Dist. Elec. Pension Fund, 959 F . 2d 

176, 179 (10th Cir. 1992) . We review de novo the legal 

determinations of the district court . Id.; accord Dennis L. 

Christensen Gen. Bldg. Contractor, Inc. v. General Bldg. 

Contractor, Inc., 952 F . 2d 1073, 1076 (9th Cir. 1991) . 

Collective bargaining agreements are more than mere 

contracts; they are intended to address a variety of unanticipated 

situations. Denhardt v. Trailways, Inc . , 767 F.2d 687 , 689 (10th 

Cir. 1985) . The collective bargaining agreement covers the entire 

employment relationship . United Steelworkers of Am. v. Warrior & 

Gulf Navigation Co., 363 U. S . 574 , 579 ( 1960 ). "It calls into 

being a new common law -- the common law of a particular industry 

or of a particular plant." Id. Arbitration is "part and parcel 

of the collective bargaining process itself. " Id. at 578 . The 

grievance procedure is a part of the continuous collective 

bar gaining process. Id. at 581. The national labor policy is to 

3 

Appellate Case: 91-1266 Document: 010110254277 Date Filed: 05/26/1992 Page: 3
settle labor disputes by arbitration. United Steelworkers of Am. 

v. Enterprise Wheel & Car Corp., 363 U.S. 593, 596 (1960); accord 

John Wiley & Sons, Inc. v. Livingston, 376 U.S. 543, 549 (1964) . 

The question of arbitrability is for judicial resolution. 

AT & T Technologies, Inc. v. Communications Workers of Am., 475 

U.S. 643, 649 (1986) . In deciding whether the dispute is subject 

to arbitration, the court may not determine the merits of the 

grievance . United Steelworkers of Arn. v. American Mfg. Co., 363 

U.S. 564, 569 (1960) . 

Although a party cannot be required to arbitrate that which 

he has not agreed to submit to arbitration, Warrior & Gulf, 363 

U.S. at 582, "[d]oubts should be resolved in favor of coverage." 

Id. at 583. If a contract includes an arbitration clause, there 

is a presumption of arbitrability. AT & T Technologies, 475 U.S. 

at 650. The dispute is arbitrable unless it can be said with 

positive assurance that the arbitration clause is not susceptible 

to an interpretation covering the dispute. Warrior & Gulf, 363 

U.S. at 582-83. "In the absence of any express provision 

excluding a particular grievance from arbitration, we think only 

the most forceful evidence of a purpose to exclude the claim from 

arbitration can prevail . . .. " Id. at 584-85; accord AT & T 

Technologies, 475 U.S . at 650 (quoting Warrior & Gulf, 363 U.S. at 

584-85); see also Garcia v. Eidal Int'l Corp., 808 F.2d 717, 721 

(10th Cir. 1986)(bargaining agreement contained a comprehensive 

arbitration clause; because there was no evidence of an "intention 

to exclude controversies arising from transactions such as the one 

involved in this action, arbitration would ordinarily be 

4 

Appellate Case: 91-1266 Document: 010110254277 Date Filed: 05/26/1992 Page: 4
appropriate"), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 827 (1987); cf. General 

Drivers, Warehousemen & Helpers v. Moog Louisville Warehouse, 852 

F.2d 871, 875 (6th Cir. 1988)("[T]he contractual language in this 

case clearly indicates that the particular grievance in dispute is 

excluded from arbitration unless the court first finds that the 

union met the conditions precedent to arbitration."). 

The presumption of arbitrability is particularly applicable 

where the arbitration clause is broad, covering "interpretation of 

[the] contract or the performance of any obligation [thereunder]." 

AT & T Technologies, 475 U.S. 650; accord Dennis L. Christensen 

Gen. Bldg. Contractor, Inc., 952 F.2d at 1077 (broad arbitration 

clause, "all disputes concerning the interpretation or application 

of [the agreements]," invoked presumption of arbitrability). 

Here, because the arbitration clause is very broad, covering "any 

dispute or complaint ... over the interpretation or application 

of this Agreement," and because there exists no specific contract 

term excluding this dispute from arbitration, arbitration is 

required unless Albertson's adduces "'the most forceful evidence'" 

from the bargaining history that this dispute is not subject to 

arbitration. See AT & T Technologies, 475 U.S . at 650, 654-55 

(Brennan, J., concurring)(quoting Warrior & Gulf, 363 U.S . at 

584-585) . Therefore, we remand for an examination of the 

bargaining history for "the most forceful evidence" excluding this 

dispute from the broad arbitration clause. If such forceful 

evidence is lacking, then "the court will have exhausted its 

function, except to order the reluctant party to arbitration. " 

American Mfg. Co., 363 U.S. at 571 (Brennan, J., concurring). 

5 

Appellate Case: 91-1266 Document: 010110254277 Date Filed: 05/26/1992 Page: 5
Albertson's asserts that there are no terms of the contract 

for the arbitrator to construe, thereby granting unlimited 

authority to the arbitrator. Appellee's Br. at 9-10 . We 

determine that the terms for the arbitrator's interpretation and 

application are "earnest effort" and "to settle such [disputes or 

complaints] promptly." Albertson ' s may well be correct that the 

Union cannot unilaterally impose ti.me limits for the selection of 

arbitrators. Nonetheless, under a broad arbitration clause, the 

question is for the arbitrator to decide . Dennis L. Chri stensen 

Gen . Bldg. Contractor, Inc., 952 F.2d at 1078. "The parties have 

committed the resolution of (any dispute] arising under the 

agreements to arbitration. We must respect that decision. " Id. 

The judgment of the United States District Court for the 

District of Colorado is VACATED, and the cause is REMANDED for 

further proceedings consistent with this order and judgment. 

Entered for the Court 

John P . Moore 

Circuit Judge 

6 

Appellate Case: 91-1266 Document: 010110254277 Date Filed: 05/26/1992 Page: 6