Document: 475 U.S. 643 106 S.Ct. 1415 89 L.Ed.2d 648 AT & T TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Petitionerv.COMMUNICATIONS WORKERS OF AMERICA et al. No. 84-1913. Argued Jan. 22, 1986. Decided April 7, Syllabus Petitioner employer and respondent Union are parties to a collective-bargaining agreement covering telephone equipment installation workers. Article 8 of the provides for arbitration differences arising over interpretation agreement. 9 that subject certain limitations, but otherwise not clause, petitioner is free exercise management functions, including hiring, placement, termination employees. 20 prescribes order in which employees will be laid off "[w]hen lack work necessitates Layoff." The filed grievance challenging petitioner's decision lay 79 installers from its Chicago location, claiming there was no at location therefore layoffs would violate 20. But refused submit on ground under were arbitrable. then sought compel by filing suit Federal District Court, which, after finding Union's least "arguable," held it arbitrator, court, decide whether had merit, and, accordingly, ordered arbitrate. Court Appeals affirmed. Held: issue whether, because express exclusion or other evidence, dispute should have been decided reviewed Appeals, referred arbitrator. Pp. 648-657. (a) Under principles set forth Steelworkers Trilogy (Steelworkers v. American Mfg. Co., 363 564, 80 1343, 4 1403; Warrior Gulf Navigation 574, 1347, 1409; Enterprise Wheel Car Corp., 593, 1358, 1424), Court's duty interpret determine intended arbitrate grievances concerning predicated "lack work" determination petitioner. If court so provides, arbitrator relative merits parties' substantive interpretations 648-651. (b) This examine itself affirm agreed layoffs. It this function first instance construe agreements clauses, consider any evidence might demonstrate particular arbitration. P. 651-652. 751 F.2d 203 (CA 7th 1984), vacated remanded. WHITE, J., delivered opinion unanimous Court. BRENNAN, concurring opinion, BURGER, C.J., MARSHALL, joined, post, p. 652. Rex E. Lee, Washington, D.C., Lawrence Gold, respondents. Justice WHITE 1 presented case asked must dispute, properly left 2 * Technologies, Inc. (AT Company), Communications Workers America (the Union) covers establishes "differences with respect contract performance obligation hereunder" mutually agreeable upon written demand either party. expressly does cover disputes "excluded provisions contract."1 that, "subject limitations contained contract, clause," hiring placement employment.2 "When Layoff," off.3 3 On September 17, 1981, T's base location. claimed planned Eight days later, however, all workers, soon thereafter, Company transferred approximately same number locations Indiana Wisconsin base. Company's workers when determines exists facility federal pursuant § 301(a) Labor Management Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. 185(a).4 Western Electric 82 C 772 (ND Ill., Nov. 18, 1983). Ruling cross-motions summary judgment, Articles 8, 9, 20, arguments as follows: 5 "Plaintiffs require an actual prior employee argue such case. plaintiffs' interpretation, allow union take threshold justified work. Defendant interprets merely providing sequence management, exclusive necessary. defendant's warranted only company followed proper laying employees." App. Pet. Cert. 10A. 6 Finding "the union's 'arguable,' " "for has merit," Id., 11A. 7 Seventh Circuit (1984). understood arbitrability. 205, n. 4. acknowledged "general rule" arbitrability courts unless stipulate otherwise, noted decisions 1409 (1960), 1403 caution avoid becoming entangled labor guise deciding From observation, announced "exception" general rule, "a where collective bargaining contains standard clearly excluded arbitration, entangle thereby involve consideration dispute." F.2d, 206. All these factors present "standard "no clear, unambiguous terminations determination." 206-207. Moreover, although "colorable arguments" both sides issue, if question well, "substantive Agreement." thus "decline[d] invitation arbitrability," "to issue." 207. admitted exception "difficult reconcile Supreme discussion court's [John Wiley Sons, Livingston, 376 543, 84 909, 11 898 (1964) ]." asserted, "dicta," reopened Nolde Brothers, Bakery Workers, 430 243, 255, 97 1067, 1074, 51 300 (1977). 10 We granted certiorari, 474 814, 56, 88 46 (1985), now vacate Circuit's remand required grievance. II necessary new. They out 25 years ago series cases known Trilogy: supra; 1424 (1960). These precepts served industrial relations community led continued reliance rather than strikes lockouts, preferred method resolving during term see reason their continuing validity, eviscerate meaning creating applicability. 12 principle gleaned "arbitration matter party cannot he submit." Gulf, supra, U.S., 582, S.Ct., 1353; 570-571, 1364-1365 (BRENNAN, concurring). axiom recognizes fact arbitrators derive authority resolve advance Gateway Coal Co. Mine 414 368, 374, 94 629, 635, 38 583 (1974). 13 second follows inexorably first, arbitrability—whether creates grievance—is undeniably judicial determination. Unless unmistakably provide 582-583, 1352-1353. See Operating Engineers Flair Builders, Inc., 406 487, 491, 92 1710, 1712, 32 248 (1972); Atkinson Sinclair Refining 370 238, 241, 1318, 1320, 462 (1962), overruled part grounds, Boys Markets, Retail Clerks, 398 235, 90 1583, 26 199 (1970). Accord, Mitsubishi Motors Corp. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth, 473 614, 626, 105 3346, 3353-3354, 87 444 (1985). 14 reaffirmed John (1964). "threshold question" survived corporate merger bind surviving corporation. 546, 912. answered doubt" courts. 'Under our decisions, bound arbitrate, well what issues determined basis entered into parties.' . being contractual origin, compulsory submission precede create duty." 546-547, 912-913 (citations omitted). 15 third derived rule potential underlying claims. Whether "arguable" not, indeed even appears frivolous, claim violated decided, agreed, "The courts, therefore, business weighing grievance, considering equity claim, determining language instrument support claim. those deem meritorious." 568, 1346 (footnote 16 Finally, established presumption sense "[a]n denied may said positive assurance clause susceptible asserted dispute. Doubts resolved favor coverage." also 377-378, 636-637. Such particularly applicable broad one employed case, "any hereunder. ." In cases, "[i]n absence provision excluding we think most forceful purpose exclude can prevail." 584-585, 1353-1354. 17 greater institutional competence interpreting agreements, "furthers national policy peaceful resolution best accords presumed objectives pursuing bargaining." Schneider Moving Storage Robbins, 466 364, 371-372, 104 1844, 1849-1850, 366 (1984) (citation 378-379, 637-638. willingness enter specified "drastically reduced," "power his own jurisdiction Cox, Reflections Upon Arbitration, 72 Harv.L.Rev. 1482, 1509 (1959). Were constrained settle but, instead, empowered impose obligations outside limited understanding conscience." Ibid. result undercuts longstanding promoting harmony through use antithetical setting rights duties parties. 18 With mind, evident erred ordering question. Company. 19 contest application Instead, urges specific here. usually contracts layoff provision, clause. That Appeals; judgment vacated, remanded proceedings conformity opinion. 21 ordered. 22 whom THE CHIEF JUSTICE MARSHALL join, concurring. 23 I join write separately supplement misunderstanding future cases. 24 erroneous conclusion arbitrable resulted confusion respecting "arbitrability" judicially made. Despite recognizing "is 'any hereunder,' "there [of dispute] arbitration," thought [were] colorable against exclusion." 203, 206-207 claims agreement: correct could reasons work, arbitrable; reasons, 9. Because very arbitrable, reasoned "determining enmesh th[e] dispute," ibid., concluded submitted mistaken insofar clear challenged management's contracting previously performed failed procedures, requested arbitration; refused, sued 301 185. similar T/CWA i.e., contract. light congressional making favored resolution, requires "unless 1352-1353 relied argument "Management Functions" like agreement, "matters strictly management," 576, 1349, provision. recognized "might refer practice circumstances prescribed permitted indulge." 584, 1353. However, read way make every depend action Union; turn merits, swallowed up exception." Therefore, found Functions general, "judicial inquiry search explicit brings [Management Functions] 572, 1365, (1960) concurring); "In prevail. 27 misunderstood rules construction did precisely disapproved —it As makes much simpler. concerns limits "strictly confined," id., 1353, answer affirmative stating opposing arbitration—here T—adduces evidence" effect history. 28 remands below apply states "it arbitration." Ante, Of course, numerous occasions construed "in instance"; so, example, three comprising Trilogy. 552-555, 916-917, (1964); Packinghouse Needham Packing 247, 249-253, 773, 774-777, 680 Nonetheless, agree some special do so. Thus, appropriate where—as —our announces new law, since applying help clarify meaning. There need, here—we simply reaffirm principles. straightforward little time effort, efficient administration us fragmentary pieces history, position evaluate intend concur remanding Appeals. pertinent part, "If National fail negotiation hereunder, shall (provided provided procedures exhausted) impartial parties." 21. states: right (subject clause) functions managing involve, among things, Employees, employment, assignment methods used, control conduct work." 22. Layoff, Employees Laid-Off accordance Term Employment Layoff groups following [subparagraphs layoff]." 23. 1.11 defines "Layoff" mean employment reduction force due Section 301(a), 61 Stat. 156, 185(a) "Suits violation between organization representing industry affecting commerce defined chapter, organizations, brought district United States having parties, without amount controversy regard citizenship

Category: 6