Opinion ID: 539796
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: the language of the contract

Text: 17 The extent of an arbitrator's authority lies within the language of the contract. An arbitrator does not have unfettered discretion, and may not impose a remedy which directly contradicts the express language of the agreement. Nor can he or she interpret a clause or provision when its language is clear, unequivocal and unambiguous. Georgia Pacific Corp. v. Local 27, 864 F.2d at 945. 18 The dispute and the subsequent arbitration at issue in the present appeal arose out of a grievance filed by the employee and the Union under Section 3 of the contract. In pertinent part, the clause reads as follows: 19 Should differences arise between the Company and the Union and its members employed by the Company as to the meaning and application of this Agreement, or should any local trouble of any kind arise in the plant, there shall be no suspension of operation on account of such differences.... (emphasis added). 20 After providing for a series of steps to be followed, the contract states: 21 [The] authority of the arbitrator shall be limited to construing and interpreting rights of the parties under terms of the Agreement. The arbitrator has no power to amend, delete, or add to its terms. 22 In the instant case, the arbitrator was presented with a question of job classification. Consequently, since job classification is a matter not specifically discussed by the agreement, this Court must initially determine whether the instant dispute is arbitrable, albeit that it is a local trouble of any kind arising in the plant as per the language of the agreement. Our task requires that we examine the arbitration clause itself.
23 The Supreme Court has determined that a presumption of arbitrability exists when a contract contains an arbitration clause. AT & T Technologies Inc. v. Communications Workers, 475 U.S. at 650, 106 S.Ct. at 1419. In AT & T, the Supreme Court, in a framework analogous to this case, addressed the effect of a broad clause in a labor agreement. The Court held that this presumption is 24 particularly applicable where the clause is as broad as the one employed in this case, which provides for arbitration of any differences arising with respect to the interpretation of this contract or the performance of any obligation hereunder ... 25 AT & T Technologies Inc. v. Communications Workers, 475 U.S. at 650, 106 S.Ct. at 1419. 26 The court continued, again on point with the instant case, by stating that: 27 [i]n such cases, '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. (quoting United Steelworkers of America v. Warrior & Gulf Navigation Co., 363 U.S. at 584-585 [80 S.Ct. at 1354]. 28 The agreement before us does not expressly exclude the arbitration of job classifications. Furthermore, it is not hard to imagine that since job duties and responsibilities have been consistently recognized as core issues in collective bargaining, the parties could have foreseen the possibility of a dispute arising on this subject, and that it would reach arbitration. 29 Moreover, it is not unreasonable to conclude that the union, in view of the broad scope of the arbitration clause, could have assumed that any dispute or conflict in that area was in fact arbitrable. It appears this is precisely the purpose of the arbitrability presumption. 30 At this point, at least with reference to the arbitrator's authority to arbitrate the dispute in question, we need go no further. We cannot allow any party to an agreement to feel that they can have it both ways. Thus, this court agrees with the magistrate and the district court that the arbitrator had authority to act. 31