T he Honor abl e Ja m es L

. G ra

ham , Uni te d State s Di st

ric t Judg e f

or the Southe rn Di st

ric t of O hio, si tti ng by

de si g nat ion. * NOT RECOMMENDED F OR FUL L -TEXT PUB L I CATI ON File Na me: 08a0040n.06 Filed: January

10, 2008 No. 07-5001 U N IT E D S T A T E S C O U R T O F A P P E A LS F O R T H E S IX T H C IR C U IT I NTERNATI ONAL

ASSOCI ATI ON OF MA CH I

NI STS A ND AE RO SPA CE WO RK ERS , Ap pe lla nt, On Appea l from the United v. States District Court for the Western District of Ke ntucky I SP C HEMI CAL S, I

NC., Appellee

.
Be fore : MOORE and GRI FF I N, Circuit J udg es; GRAHAM, District Judge. *

OP IN ION GR AHAM, Distr ict Judge. This is an appe al from the de cision of the United States District Court fo r the Wes te rn Di str ic t of Ke ntu c ky de te rm ini ng that a g ri e va nc e fi le d a g a ins t I SP Ch e mic a ls, I nc. (“I SP” or the “Company ”) by the I nternational A ssociation of Machinists and Ae ro s p ace Workers, L odg e No. 1720 ( the “Union” ), a la bor org anization repre sent i ng I SP employ ees, is not

arb itr a ble un de r t

he te rm s o f the Col le c tiv e B arg a ini ngAg re e me nt ( “ CB A” ) g ov e rn ingthe pa rt ie s’ relationship. Beca

use the a rbitration clause is susceptible of an inter pretation in which the Union’s g ri e va nc e is a n a rb itr a ble dis pu te , w e re ve rs e the g ra nt o f s umm ary

jud g me nt t o I SP.

F ACTUAL AND P ROCEDURAL BACK GR OUNDNo. 07-5001

Int’l. Assoc. of Mac hinists and AerospaceW

krs. v. I SP Chemicals, Inc

.

2 The Union a

nd I SP are par

ties to a C BA eff

ective from J anuar

y 8, 2005 to J anuar

y 8, 2008. Ar t i c l e X o f t h e C B A s e t s f o rt h a g r i e v an c e an d ar

b i t r a t i o n p r o c e d

u r e w h i c h c u l min a te s in arbitration. See J .A. at 94-95, ¶¶ 44-53. The CBA broa dly define s a g rieva

nce a s “any

differ ence of opinion or dispute betwee n repr esentatives of the Company and any

employ ee or

Union repr esentative reg ardinginterpre tation or application of a ny provision of this Agr eeme nt.” Id . at 94, ¶ 4 4. Af te r t he a g g ri e ve d p art

y ha s p ur su e d th e thr e e -s te p p ro c e dure ou tli ne d in Ar tic le X, the pa

rt y may seek to re solve its disput e throug h arbitration. Se e id . at 94-95. The CB A excepts ce rtain matters f rom arbitration. Parag raph 52 provides in pe rtinent part that “ [i]t is un de rs too d b y and betw e e n th e pa rt ie s th a t matte rs inv olv ingg e ne ra l w a g e le ve ls, exis ting job cla ssifications (as se t forth in this Agr eeme nt), and matters not specifica lly cover ed by this Agr eeme nt shall not be arbitra ble.” J .A. at 95, ¶ 52. The pa rties dispute whethe r the matter at iss ue in t he Un ion ’s Gr ie va

nc e #2 00 5- 23 – e mpl oy ee con tr ibutio ns tow ard me dic a l be ne fi ts –

is arbitra ble under the terms of the CBA. The topic of employ ee contributions toward medical benefits was neg otiated by the par ties befor e they enter ed into the CBA. J .A. at 39-40. During the CBA ne g otiations, I SP and the Union

a g re e d u po n a rate str uc tur e that ut ili zed

c e rt a in v ari a

ble s to de te rm ine the a mou nt e mpl oy e e s w ou ld pay towards their medical insurance from y ear to y ear . Id

. The particula rs of this rate structure for
e mpl oy ee co ntr ibutio ns , h ow e ve r, we re no t in c lud e d in the CB A i tse lf

. T he on ly

re fe re nc e to
e mpl oy e e c on tr ibutio ns in t he CB A i s in

Para g ra ph98 , w hic h p ro vid e s in

pe rt ine nt p art : Employ ees a

re e ligible f

or the following benef

its, the terms which are set forth in t he GA F L EXSum mary

Plan D e sc ri pti on

bo ok le t: Me dic al B e ne

fit s De nta l B e ne fi ts Vi sio n B e ne fi ts Prescr iption Drug PlanNo. 07-5001

Int’l. Assoc. of Mac hinists and AerospaceW

krs. v. I SP Chemicals, Inc

.

3 GA F CO MP Hea lth Care Ac count Depe ndant Care Acc ount GAF Retiree Me dical Employe e contributions for these cove rages are de fined in the benefits book.

J .A. at 105, ¶ 98 (empha sis a dded). The details of the employ ee contribution rate structure , in turn,

are set forth in t h e “bene fits book” re fer ence d in Parag raph 98 of the CBA. J.A. at 37, 153. The be ne fi ts b oo k d oe s n ot c on ta in a n arb itr a tio n p ro vis ion , b ut d oe s c on ta in a dis c la ime r t

hat pr ov ide s: Th is b oo kle t is no t a

c on tr a c t or

a Sum mary

Pla n D e sc ri pti on bu t so le ly int e nd e d to g ive y o ua

s h o rtd e s c r i p t i o no f

t h e m a i np r o v i s i o n s o f

y o u r I S P E mp l o y e e B e n e fi t Prog rams. I f any conflict should a rise betwee n the descr iption in this booklet and the Summary Plan Descr iptions, P lan Documents or Trust Ag ree ments, the terms of the Summary Plan Descr iptions, P lan Docume nts or Trust Ag ree ments will, of course, g overn in a ll c as es. Copies of these officia l documents may be inspec ted upon ma kin g a

r e qu e s tt o t h e C o r

p o r a t e H um anR e s o u r c e s D e p art m e n t( B e n e fi ts Depa rtment).
J.A. a t 38 . D e sp ite the re fe re nc e to v ari ou s o the r p lan d oc ume nts , th e e mpl oy e e c on tr ibutio n ra te str uc tur e is n ot s e t f

or th i n any of tho se do c ume nts or

in a ny oth e r d oc ume nt, bu t on ly in t he be ne fi ts book. See Union Br . at 21. On Aug ust 22, 2005, the Union filed Grie vance #2005-23, disputing the a mount employ ees
wer e beingrequired t o co ntribute toward the ir medica l benef its. J .A. at 131. The Union’s “Statement of Gr i ev an ce ” wa s that I SP was not “abiding by [t he] neg otiated rate structure for employ ee contributions towa rd medical benef

its . . . .” Id

. The g rieva

nce w as pursue d throug h the three -step g rieva

nce pr ocedur e provide d in the CBA a nd was denied. Id . at 133. The U nion then reque sted that the g rieva

nce be submitted to arbitration, but I SP ul timately ref used, asse rting that the subject matter of

the g rieva

nce w as n o t ar b i trable unde r the ter ms of the CBA. Se e id . at 137-38.No. 07-5001

Int’l. Assoc. of Mac hinists and AerospaceW

krs. v. I SP Chemicals, Inc

.

4 Re lyingup on

the state me nt c on ta ine d in Para g ra ph52 that “ ma tte rs no t spe c if ic a lly c ov e re d b y

thi s Ag ree ment shall not be arbitra ble,” I SP contends that the matter of e mploy ee contributions toward medical be nefits is not one that is “spec ifically cover ed” by

the CBA. I

n response to I SP’s refusal to arbitrate , the Union filed the instant ac tion to compel a rbitration pursuant to Sec tion 301 of the L abor- Manag ement Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 185. J .A. at 6-8. Upon cr oss motions for summary judgme nt, the district c ourt g rante d summary judgme nt for I SP, r e a so nin g tha

t, d e sp ite a pr e su mpt ion of arb itr a bil ity , the te rm s of the CB A w e re no t su sc e pti ble of an interpre tation in which the rate structure could be considere d a “spec ifically cover ed” matter. Th e di st ri ct c ou rtals o rej ect ed t he U ni on ’s a lt erna ti ve ar gume n t t h at P aragraph 98 of t he C BA incorpora ted by ref ere nce the terms of the rate structure as set forth in the benef its book. The Union now appe als the district court’ s decision.

STA ND AR

D O F RE VI EW Th is c ourt

re vie ws de novo a district c ourt’s decision g ranting summary judgme nt. United Ste e l W or k e rs o f A m. v . Co op e r Tir e & Ru bb e r Co ., 474 F.3 d 2 7 1 , 277 (6th Cir. 2007). “The standard of revie w for a district court’s de cision reg ardingwhether a dispute is arbitra

ble is also de

novo .” Simon v. Pfizer Inc ., 398 F.3d 765, 772 ( 6th Cir. 2005).

DI SCU SSIO N At the outset, the court observe s that, contra ry to I SP’s posi tion, the “scope test” adopte d by this circuit in Coo

pe r Tir e is ina

pplicable to the instant dispute. Se e Coo pe r Tir e , 474 F.3d at 278- 79. I n Coo

pe r Tir e , the court employ ed the scope test to determine “ whether a dispute over

a ‘side ag ree ment’ that [did] not provide for arbitration [came] within [a] CBA’ s arbitration clause.” Id . atNo. 07-5001

Int’l. Assoc. of Mac hinists and AerospaceW

krs. v. I SP Chemicals, Inc

.

IS P sta te s in it s b ri ef: 1
T he Be nef

its Book le t, by

it s te rm s, is not a cont

ra ct
. T he si de le tte rs and a g re em ent s re f er enc ed in Coo

per Tire w er e bin din g c on tracts. W hile w e believ e the Coo

per Tire s ta

ndar d s hould be us ed f

or de te rm iningthe arbitrabi lity

of disp utes arising over the Benef its Bo o kl et , we d o n ot con cede that the Benef its Boo klet is a bindingc ontra ct
. ISP’s Br . at 8 n.3. ISP ar g ues that the m atte r of the e m ploy ee c ontri bution rate s truc ture is not ar bitr abl e bec aus e it is c ov er ed by the be nef its book , y et

s im ulta neous ly arg ues that t

he bene f its book is not a binding cont

ra ct
. Unde r ISP’s re as oning , the Uni on w ould have no recourse w ith regard to disp utes concernin g the rate stru cture as it m ay neither sub m it its griev ance to arbitration because the rate structure is contained in the ben ef its bo ok, no r enf

orce the rate structu re i n c o u r t b ec au se t he benefits book is not an enf orc ea ble c ontra ct . I SP’s pos iti on is , qui te s im ply , unt ena

ble

. 5 278. The dispute at issue he re, how ever , does not involve a side ag ree ment, that is, an ag ree ment
rea ched by

the par ties separ ate a

nd apar t from the CBA

. Se e id

. at 274 n.3. As the ben ef i t s b ook

c le arl y pr ov ide s, and ind e e d I SP r e pe a te dly re min ds thi s c ourt , th e be ne fi ts b oo k is no t a c on tr a c t. 1 See J .A. at 38; I SP’s Br. at 4, 6, 8 n.3. Mo re imp or

tantl y , th e Un ion ’s griev anc e is t hat I SP is no t a dh e ri ngto t he ne g oti a te d r a te structure for e mploy ee c ontribution s t o wa rd medical be nefits, see J .A. at 131, a matter which, a s discussed more f

ully , inf ra , this court finds is a dis pute concerning the interpre tation or application of a pr ovision of the CBA, na mely Parag raph 98. I SP s elec tively quotes from the Union’s g rieva nce in suppor t of its a rg ument that this dispute is a bout the benef

its book. See I SP’ s B r. a t 3. Whil e it is true t hat t he “Settlement Requested” in the grieva nce rec ord was “for the company to abide by the benef its book . . . ,” id ., the clear “Statement of Grie vance ” wa s that the “c ompany [was] not abiding by [the ] ne g oti a ted rat e str

uc tur e fo r e mpl oy e e c on tr ibutio n to wa rd me dic a l be ne fi ts” – b e ne fi ts which we re ba

rg ained fo r d u ring the neg otiations for the CBA , see J .A. at 39-57, a nd which ar e
e xpre ssl y pr ov ide d f

or in P ara g ra

ph98 . F or the se re a so ns , th e sc op e te st i s in a pp lic a ble to t his matter. I n decidingthe ar

bitrability of t his dispute, we beg in with the presumption that national labor policy favor s arbitration. Coo

pe r Tir e , 474 F.3d at 277. Our a naly sis is guided by

the four pr inciplesNo. 07-5001

Int’l. Assoc. of Mac hinists and AerospaceW

krs. v. I SP Chemicals, Inc

.

Steelworkers v . Am. Mfg. Co ., 363 U. S. 564 (1960) ; Steelworkers v. Warrior & Gulf Navigat ion Co ., 363 U. S. 574 (1960) ; 2 Ste el wor ke rs v . Enter

pri seW hee l & Car

Cor p. , 363 U .S. 593 (1960)

.

6 set forth b y

the Supreme Court in the Steelworkers Trilogy and later collecte d in A T

&T 2 Te c hn ologie

s, In c . v . Co mm un ic ati on s W or k e rs , 475 U.S. 643 (1986). Those pr inciples have been

su mma ri zed by thi s c ir c uit

a s f oll ow s: 1) a pa rty cannot be forc ed to ar

bitrate a ny dispute that it has not oblig ated itself by c on tr a c t to subm it to a rb itr a tio n; 2 ) u nle ss t he pa rt ie s c le arl y

and un mis taka

bly provide other

wise, whe ther a collective barg aining ag ree ment cre ates a duty for the parties to ar

bitrate a particula

r g rieva nce is a question for judicial deter mination; 3) in making this dete rmination, a court is not to consider the merits of t he under ly ing c la im; and

4) wh e re the a g re e me nt c on ta ins a n arbi tr a tio n c la us e , th e c ourt

sh ou ld apply a pre sumption of arbitrability , resolve any doubts in favor of ar bitration, and s h o u ld n o t d e n y an o r d e r to ar b it r a te u n le s s it ma

y b e s a id w it

h p o s it iv e assur ance that the ar

bitration claus e i s n o t susceptible of a n interpre tation that cover s the asser ted dispute.
Coo pe r Tir e , 4 7 4 F. 3 d

at 2 7 7 -7 8 (q u o t i n g Int’l Union v. Cummins, Inc ., 434 F.3d 478, 485 ( 6th Cir. 2006)(inter

nal citation omitted)). In case s involving broad arbitration c lauses, the pr esumption of arbitra bility is “particula

rly applicable ,” and only

an express provision excluding a particula r g ri e va nc e fr om a

rb itrat io n o r “ ‘t

he mos t f or c e fu l e vid e nc e of

a purp os e to e xclu de ,’ ” c an p re va il. Un ite d Ste e lwo rk

e rs of Am

. v . M

e ad Cor p . , 2 1 F. 3 d

1 2 8 , 1 3 1 (6 t h C i r. 1 9 9 4 ) ( qu o t i n g A T &T , 475 U.S. at 650 (interna l citation omitt ed))

. I SP arg ues that the pre sumption of arbitrability does not a pply here beca

use the a rbitration claus e in the CBAis narrow ly draw n to exclude the matter of e mploy ee c ontributions toward

me dic a l be ne fi ts f

ro m arb itr a tio n. I n s up po rt of its a rgume nt, I SP c ite s tw o T hir d Ci rc uit c a se s: Trap Rock Industries v. Local 825 , 982 F.2d 884 ( 3d Cir. 1992) and Local 82 7 v. V er i z on New Jerse y , 458 F.3d 305 ( 3d Cir. 2006). I n eac h of those ca ses, howeve r, the c ourt did not apply the presumption of ar

bitrability beca use the a rbitration clau s es wer e nar rowly cra fted, such that theyNo. 07-5001

Int’l. Assoc. of Mac hinists and AerospaceW

krs. v. I SP Chemicals, Inc

.

7 clea rly and unambiguously excluded the m atter reg ardingwhich ar bitration was soug ht. See Trap Rock, 982 F.2d at 888 n.5 (stating that “[b] eca use the arbitration provision . . . is narr owly cra fted to a pp ly on ly to c e rt a in dis c ipl ina ry dis c ha rg e s and lay of

fs , we c ann ot pr e su me , a s we mig ht i f it
wer e dra fted more broadly , t h at t he par ties here ag ree d to submit all disputes to arbitration . . . . Th us, th e pr e su mpt ion

of arb itr a bil ity

. . . [is ] ina

pp os ite .” ); Verizon , 458 F.3d at 311 (finding the pr e su mpt ion

ina pp lic a ble to a na rr owc la us e and statin g t hat “[i]f the arb itr a tio n c la us e is c le a rl y broad or ambig uous, we will apply the presumption of arbitrability . I f the c lause is not ambig uous and cle arly

delimits t he issues subject to ar bit ra t i o n , t he pre sumption of arbitrability does not apply .”). Her e, in contra st, the ag ree ment to a rbitrate br oadly

includes “a

ny differ ence of opinion or dispute

. . . reg arding interpre tation or application of any provision of t his Ag ree ment,” see J .A. at 94, ¶ 44, with only three cate g ories of matters ex cluded f rom arbitration, as set forth in Para g raph 52. The c ourt finds that the ar bitration clause in the instant matter is t h e t y p e o f broa d clause for which this circuit holds the pre sumption i s not merely applicable , but “par

ticularly applicable .” See C leve land Elec. Illuminating Co. v. Util. W orkers, Local 270 , 4 4 0 F

. 3 d 8 0 9 , 8 1 4 ( 6 th

Ci r . 2006) (obser ving that “the pre sumption of arbitrability is p ar t icularly

applicable wher e the a

rbitration

c la us e pr ov ide s fo r arb itr a tio n of any c on tr ov e rs y inv olv ingthe int e rp re ta tio n o f t he CB A” ); se e als o Coo pe r Tir e , 474 F.3d at 279 (finding the pre sumption particularly applicable to a broad c lause that pro vide d f

or arb itr a tio n o f “ any

dis pu te
. . . a s to the int e rp re ta tio n o r a pp lic a tio n o f t

his [a]g re e me nt” ); Mead , 21 F.3d at 132 (finding the same wher e the clause provided for arbitration of “g rieva nces char g ing that the Company has violated [t he] [a]gr eeme nt a nd involving the interpre tation of, or complianc e with, [t he] [a]gr eeme nt,” despite the express exclusion of wag es and wag e rates from a

rbitration).No. 07-5001

Int’l. Assoc. of Mac hinists and AerospaceW

krs. v. I SP Chemicals, Inc

.

8 I SP ar g ues that Parag raph 44, the para g raph defining g rieva nces, is me rely th e p ro vision which g ives meaningto the term “g rieva nce,” and is not part of the arbitration c lause. I SP contends that the ar

bitrat i o n clause consists solely of Para g raph 52, w hich is the para g raph that excludes
cer tain matters fr om arbitration. Although the district court found this argument persua sive, we do not rea d the ar

bitration cl au s e s o narr owly . I nstead, the e ntirety of Article X, entitled “Gr ievanc e and Ar bitration Procedur e,” w hich includes both Para g raph 44 a nd Parag raph 52, is the “ arbitration clause ” to which the c ourt will look in determining t h e arbitra bility of this dispute. This follows from the f

act tha t under the CBA, a ll unresolved g rieva nces a re subjec t to arbitration; hence , the definition of what is grieva ble i s also the definiti on of what is arbitrable, subjec t, of course , to the three cate g ories of e x cluded matter s. We find that this is a broad arbitration c lause, simil ar to the clause in Mead

. See M

ead , 21 F.3d at 132. Although the presumption is particular ly applica b le , a n “ e xp r e s s p r o v is io n

e xc luding a

n issue from ar bitration which allows a court to say ‘with positive assura nce that the arbitration clause is not susceptible of a

n interpre tatio n t h at cove rs the asse rted dispute’ r ebuts the pre sumption of arbitra bility .” United St eelworke rs of Am., AFL-CIO, CLC v. Century Aluminum of Kentucky , 157 F. Ap p ’x 8 6 9 , 8 7 3 (6 t h C i r. 2 0 0 5 ) ( qu o t i n g A T &T , 475 U.S

. at 650 (interna l citation omitt ed))

. Ab se nt a n e xpre ss e xclu sio n f

ro m arb itr a tio n, “ on ly

the mos t f

or c e fu l e vid e nc e of

a purp os e to exclude the claim from arbitration can pr evail.” A T &T , 4 7 5 U. S

. at 6 5 0 (q u o t i n g W arrio r &Gu lf

, 363 U.S. at 584-85)

. He re , t here is no ex press e x clusion of matters r elating to employ ee
contr ibutions t owar d medical be nefits, only a g ener al exclusion of matters “not spec ifically cover ed” by the CBA. We f

ind no force ful evidenc e of a purpose to ex clude f

rom arbitration claims relating to employ ee c ontributions toward medica l benef its.No. 07-5001

Int’l. Assoc. of Mac hinists and AerospaceW

krs. v. I SP Chemicals, Inc

.

9 I SP’s arg ument that the m atter is not arbitra ble because it is not “spec ifically cover ed” by

the CBA is unava iling. The CB A expressly , albeit brief ly , discusses employ ee c ontributions, and expli citly indicates wher e the parties may look to find the details of their a g ree ment reg ardingthe rate structure . Parag raph 98 of the CBA makes cle ar that employ ees a re r equire d to contribute to the medical be nefi t s p ro v i d ed by the CBA a

nd that the par

ticulars of the matter a

re de fined in the benef its book. J .A. at 105, ¶ 98. While this matter is addresse d only in ge nera l terms in the CBA, it is, nevertheless, spe cifica lly cover ed. This circuit has previously observe d that if the provision upon which a pa rty relies to exclude a par ticular dispute fr om arbitration is “e qually consistent with opposing interpr etations , and the lang uag e employ ed does no t ‘ c le a r ly a n d unambig uously

descr ibe[] the issue or issues excluded fr om arbitration,’ the . . . lang uag e ca nnot be said to expr es sly ex clude that issue.” Century Aluminum , 1 5 7 F. Ap p ’x at 8 7 3 -7 4 (q u o t i n g Un ite d Ste e lwo rk e rs of A m. , A FL- CI

O- CLC v . Lu k

e ns Ste e l Co ., 969 F.2d 1468, 1476 ( 3d Cir. 1992))(holding that a provision in a last ch an ce agr eeme nt did not expressly exclude the parties’ dispute from arbitration under the collective ba rg aining ag ree ment). No provision of the a

rbitration clause clea

rly and unambig uously

excludes the matter of

employ ee contributions toward medic al bene fits, and I SP ot herw ise has fa iled to come for war d with the

re qu isi te fo rc e fu l e vid e nc e of a purp os e to e xclu de thi s matter fro m a rb itr a tio n, a s r e qu ir e d to
overc ome t he presumption of arbitrability

. Se e In t’ l U nio n, UA W

v . U nit e d S c re w & Bo lt Co rp ., 941 F.2d 466, 472- 73 (6th Cir. 1991) (compe lling arbitra tion whe re the employ er ha d not “satisfied the requirem ent for f

orce ful evidenc e to over come the pr esumption that the g rieva nces should be arbitrated”) . Consequently , this court must resolve any doubts in favor of a

rbitration. Although t h e co urt has dete rmined that the a rbitration clause , on its face , is susceptible of an interpr etation in which the matter at issue here is arbitra ble, we also find persua sive the Union’sNo. 07-5001

Int’l. Assoc. of Mac hinists and AerospaceW

krs. v. I SP Chemicals, Inc

.

10 a lte rn a tiv e argume nt t

hat th e langua g e inc lud e d in Para g ra ph98 of the CB A i s su ff

ic ie nt t o inc or po rate by re fe re nc e the e mpl oy e e c on tr ibutio n r a te str uc tur e se t f

or th i n th e be ne fi ts b oo k in to the CBA. Par ag raph 98 provides that “[e]mpl oy ee c ontributions for [m edica l cover ag e] are de fined in t he be ne fi ts b oo k. ” J.A. a t 105. Th is state me nt cl e arl y and un e qu ivo c a lly ide nti fi e s th e be ne fi ts boo k as t h e l ocation whe re the details of the e mploy ee c ontribution rate structur e for the medica l benef its provided by

the CBA ma

y be found. As the Thi rd C ircuit has obser ved, “[i]ncorporation by re fe re nc e is p ro pe r w he re the un de rl y ingc on tr a c t make s c le ar r e fe re nc e to a se pa ra te do c ume nt, the identity of the separ ate document may be asc erta ined, and incor poration of the doc ument will not result in surprise or

hardship.” Standard Be nt G lass Corp., v. Glassrobot s Oy , 333 F.3d 440, 447 (3 d Ci r. 20 03 ); se e als o 11 Richard A. L ord, Will iston on Cont rac ts § 30.25 (4th ed. 1999)(“So long

a s th e c on tr a c t make s c le ar r e fe re nc e to t he do c ume nt a

nd de sc ri be s it in suc h te rm s th a t it s id e nti ty may be asc erta ined beyond doubt, the parties to a c ontrac t m ay i n co rporate contra ctual ter ms by ref ere nce to a

separ ate, nonc ontemporane ous document, including a s epar ate a g ree ment to which they are not parties, and inc luding a separ ate doc ument which is unsigne d.”). I nc or po ratin g the rate str

uc tur e int o th e CBA wi ll no t r e su lt i n s ur pr ise or ha rd sh ip a s it

is undisputed that the parties ba rg ained f or and approved the rate structure for e mploy ee c ontributions during the neg otiations for the CBA

. The only place wher e the de tails of the rate structure may be fo un d is the be ne fi ts b oo k, wh ic h in c lud e s a dis c la ime r t

hat it is n ot i nte nd e d to be an e nf or c e a ble contra ct. Ther e is no requir ement, how ev er , that a wr iting be a contra ct to be incor

porate d by ref ere nce. Se e ge ne ra lly

Wil liston on C ontrac ts § 30.25. The c ourt finds that the CBA ’s clea r ref ere nce to the book in the same pa rag raph w hich g uara

ntees medic al cove rag e to employ ees a nd the par ties’ bar g aining history

indicate that the r ate struc ture for em p l oy ee c ontributions was intended to be pa

rt of the r ights a

nd obligations ag ree d upon by the par ties in the CBA.No. 07-5001

Int’l. Assoc. of Mac hinists and AerospaceW

krs. v. I SP Chemicals, Inc

.

11 Our c onclusion is bolst ere d by this court’s reasoning in an ana logous c ase. See I BEW , Local No. 2020 v. AT& T Network Sys ., 879 F.2d 864 ( Table) , No. 88-3895, 1989 U.S. App. L EXI S 10266, at *16-17 (6th Cir. Jul y

17, 1989). I n IBEW

, AT& T argued that the pa rties’ c ollective bar g aining ag ree ment (“A T& T Ag ree ment”) ex cluded from arbitration matters relating to the ca lculation of an

e mpl oy e e ’s te rm

of e mpl oy me nt. Se ve ra l art ic le s in the AT & T A g re e me nt p ro vid e d b e ne fi ts t o
c e rt a in em

plo y e e s, wi th t

he le ve l of

be ne fi ts d e pe nd ingup on

the e mpl oy e e ’s a c c umu la te d s e nio ri ty with the company

. Id . at *1 3. Th e com pu tat io n o f se ni ori ty cred it s w as m ade, no t un der th e AT&T Ag re e me nt, bu t un de r the pe ns ion pla n. AT & T a

rgue d th a t be c a

us e c omp utatio n o f s e nio ri ty c re dit s was made under the pension plan and beca use the AT& T Ag ree ment excluded disputes involving t he pension plan f

rom arbitration, disput es re lated to seniority computations were excluded from arbitration. This court disag ree d and held that “ it is not at all unre asonable to rea d the collec tive barg aining ag ree ment as incorpor ating , by ref ere nce, those portions of the pension plan that have a direc t bear ing on the employ ee’ s barg ained- for r ights unde r the a g ree ment.” Id

. at *16. The c ourt stated that the c alculation of an employ ee’ s term of e mploy ment clea rly would be cove red unde r the CBA unde r such a

n interpre tation. Id

. Simi larly , here , the Union is not complaining a bout the benef

its book, but about the potential inf ri ng e me nt of c on tr a c t ri g hts g ua ra nte e d un de r the CB A, re su lti ngfr om I SP’ s f a ilure to a dh e re to the ne g oti a te d r a te str

uc tur e fo r e mpl oy e e c on tr ibutio ns tow ard me dic a l be ne fi ts. Th e ri g ht t o
arb itr a te dis pu te s c on c e rn ing the be ne fi ts pr ov ide d by Para g ra ph 98 of the CB A b e c ome s “ vir

tua lly meaning less” if ther e is no rig ht to arbitrate dec isions as to the employ ee c ontribution rate structur e, which dire ctly

aff ects the a vailability

of bar g ained- for r ights. Se e id . C on seq uen tl y , t he C BA
re a so na bly may be c on str ue d as i nc or

po ratin g by

re fe re nc e the pa

rt ie s’ a g re e me nt r e g ard ingthe rateNo. 07-5001

Int’l. Assoc. of Mac hinists and AerospaceW

krs. v. I SP Chemicals, Inc

.

12 str uc tur e fo r e mpl oy e e c on tr ibutio ns tow ard me dic a l be ne fi ts, the re by br ing ingthe ma tte r s qu a re ly within the ambit of the CBA’ s arbitration clause.

CO NC LU SION B e c a us e we c ann ot s ay

wi th p os iti ve a ssu

ra nc e that th e arb itr a tio n c la us e is n ot s us c e pti ble of an inter

pretation that covers the asser ted dispute, this c ourt must re solve any doubts in fa vor of arbitration. Accor dingly , we REVERSE the j udg ment of t he dis trict court and direct that summary judgme nt be g rante d to the Union.