Opinion ID: 181299
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Issues Underlying the Dispute

Text: The Company argues that the best determinant of whether the parties intended to arbitrate the dispute is whether the answer to the underlying issue resides within the terms of the CBA or some other document. The Company claims the underlying issue here is the meaning of termination as used in § 5.03 of the Pension Plan, so the parties did not intend to arbitrate this dispute. We need not decide whether the Company's proposed underlying issue test may provide most forceful evidence against arbitrability [2] because issues underlying the present dispute require interpretation of the CBA. The Company argues that because it agrees the laid-off employees meet all CBA requirements for the Thirty and Out benefit, the only disputed issue is whether the termination language in the Pension Plan makes the laid-off employees nonetheless ineligible for the Thirty and Out benefit. But the meaning of termination is only one of several issues underlying the dispute. One issue the Company does not recognize is whether § 13.01 of the CBA reflects the parties' intent to allow all employees, regardless of layoff status, to receive the Thirty and Out benefit. If the best reading of § 13.01 reveals that the parties intended to allow laid-off employees to receive the Thirty and Out benefit, then any contrary Company action based on an interpretation of termination in the Pension Plan would violate § 13.01, even if it does not violate the Pension Plan. Another underlying issue is whether § 13.01 contemplates that the Pension Plan's Thirty and Out eligibility requirements will remain constant. If the best reading of § 13.01 reflects the parties' intent to maintain the eligibility requirements of the Pension Plan as of the effective date of the CBA, then any Company denial of the Thirty and Out benefit based on a subsequent unilateral amendment to the Pension Plan may violate the CBA. Since these issues underlying the dispute require interpretation of the CBA, the Company's underlying issues argument does not show most forceful evidence of an intent to exclude the dispute from arbitration.