Opinion ID: 755809
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Assuming Dispute is Related to Jurisdiction or Work Assignment

Text: 21 TVA also points to section C of S.A. 1, entitled Resolution of Disputes, which states that [d]isputes with respect to the assignment of new classes to defined bargaining units, the establishment of classes not assigned to any bargaining unit, or the designation of excluded classes will be resolved by Labor Relations, as evidence that the dispute here is excluded from the arbitration process. 10 J.A. at 95 (S.A. 1: C). This argument was rejected by the district court below. The district court concluded that the first category clearly encompassed only those disputes among Panel unions, and not disputes between a Panel union and a nonPanel union since the only unions that are listed as defined bargaining units under section A of S.A. 1 are Panel unions. J.A. at 24 (Dist. Ct. Op. at 10), 95 (S.A. 1: A). 22 Two factors lead us to disagree. First, we believe that the phrase defined bargaining units refers to all bargaining units defined in the TVA employment structure, and not just to those defined bargaining units that are members of the Panel. We base this conclusion on the contrasting language in S.A. 1.D. which specifically uses the phrase the bargaining units defined in S-1:A above to refer to those defined bargaining units within the Panel. Furthermore, even assuming that defined bargaining units means only those bargaining units defined in S.A. 1.A., we believe that under a plain reading, [d]isputes with respect to the assignment of work refers not only to disputes over the assignment of new classes of work 11 but as well to disputes over the non-assignment of new classes of work. This is the logical reading of the provision. We also note that it would be improper to assume that the assignment (as opposed to non-assignment) of new classes of work to a bargaining unit is typically an action that is favored by the union representing the bargaining unit. We point to our opinion in Local 58 as one recent example of a situation in which the assignment of a new class of work to a bargaining unit has been fiercely contested by the union representing the bargaining unit. The dispute in Local 58 involved the employer's addition of a material handlers classification to a bargaining unit so that these employees could take over certain tasks of moving materials and tools from one area of a job site to another that were previously performed by foremen and journeymen electricians in the same bargaining unit. See id., 43 F.3d at 1029, 1033. Although the regrouping of work tasks allowed the company to lower its composite crew costs, the union was against the addition because material handlers would be performing the same work as foremen and journeymen electricians but paid less. 23 We thus conclude that under the Collective Bargaining Agreement, appellees' grievance with TVA is not subject to arbitration. While extrinsic evidence of historical relations between the parties can be considered under the Collective Bargaining Agreement where the language is ambiguous, we believe the language of the Collective Bargaining Agreement clearly allows TVA Labor Relations to resolve the dispute at issue here. 24