Opinion ID: 678863
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Entitlement to a Stay

Text: 55 Because in my view we have jurisdiction to hear this appeal, I must briefly indicate that the Union is entitled to a stay under Section 3 of the FAA. Where a collective bargaining agreement contains an arbitration clause, [a]n order to arbitrate the particular grievance should not be denied unless it may be said with positive assurance that the arbitration clause is not susceptible of an interpretation that covers the asserted dispute. Doubts should be resolved in favor of coverage. AT & T Technologies, Inc. v. Communications Workers of America, 475 U.S. 643, 650, 106 S.Ct. 1415, 1419, 89 L.Ed.2d 648 (1986) (quoting United Steelworkers of America v. Warrior & Gulf Navigation Co., 363 U.S. 574, 582-83, 80 S.Ct. 1347, 1352-53, 4 L.Ed.2d 1409 (1960)). The collective bargaining agreement at issue here provides that With the exception of grievances concerning the incentive system outlined in this Contract, all grievances between the two parties shall be deemed arbitrable. Article IV, Section 2 (emphasis added). The presumption of arbitrability afforded to any particular grievance that arises under a collective bargaining agreement containing an arbitration clause is particularly applicable where the clause is ... broad, AT & T Technologies, 475 U.S. at 650, 106 S.Ct. at 1419, and we have already construed a similar agreement between the parties now before us as containing such a broad arbitration clause. Local 232, Allied Industrial Workers of America v. Briggs & Stratton Corp., 837 F.2d 782, 785 (7th Cir.1988). In 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. AT & T Technologies, 475 U.S. at 650, 106 S.Ct. at 1419 (quoting Warrior & Gulf, 363 U.S. at 584-85, 80 S.Ct. at 1354). The arbitration clause in the case at bar broadly covers all grievances between the two parties, with one explicit exception not applicable here. Briggs & Stratton does not suggest any express provision that would exclude its damages claim from arbitration, nor does it advance a persuasive argument that there is any forceful evidence of a purpose to exclude its claim from arbitration, as required by AT & T Technologies. 56 Therefore, because this grievance is referable to arbitration under Section 3 of the FAA and the Union is not in default in proceeding with the arbitration, a stay of district court proceedings is mandated.