Opinion ID: 2602233
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The ALRA Has Jurisdiction To Decide Whether an Issue Is Arbitrable.

Text: The union argues that there are statutory, contractual, and policy reasons that support the agency's power to decide the arbitrability of this dispute. The superior court disagreed and ruled that the ALRA erred by concluding that it had jurisdiction to resolve [arbitrability]. In State v. Public Safety Employees Ass'n [25] we held that questions of arbitrability should be determined by the court unless the parties clearly and unmistakably provide otherwise. [26] The decision in PSEA adopted the federal rule as stated by the United States Supreme Court in AT & T Technologies, Inc. v. Communications Workers of America. [27] The Supreme Court based its decision in that case on the long-established legal principle that because the duty to arbitrate is contractual in nature, `a compulsory submission to arbitration cannot precede judicial determination that the collective bargaining agreement does in fact create such a duty.' [28] However, PSEA is inapplicable to the present situation. PSEA dealt with the issue of whether a court or an arbitrator should decide questions of arbitrability. Here, the issue is whether the court or the ALRA, an administrative agency, has jurisdiction to determine questions of arbitrability. The latter issue is covered by positive statutory law giving the ALRA jurisdiction. Specifically, AS 23.40.210 provides, in relevant part: The agreement shall include a grievance procedure which shall have binding arbitration as its final step. Either party to the agreement has a right of action to enforce the agreement by petition to the labor relations agency.[ [29] ] The union asserts that the ALRA has the power to decide arbitrability because this statute gives the agency the power to enforce the CBA, including the requirement for grievance arbitration. We agree. Because arbitrators have such broad discretion, it is often problematic for them to decide their own jurisdiction, for if they are wrong, there may be essentially no review. This is so because the superior court reviews an arbitrator's decision under a standard giving extreme deference to the arbitrator. [30] On the other hand, a decision by the ALRA goes through an administrative appeals process in which the decision is subject to varying standards of scrutiny [31] that allow for a much more piercing review than review of an arbitrator's decision. Therefore, the concerns about the non-appealable nature of an arbitrator's award are not present with administrative agency decisions.