Opinion ID: 245693
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Was the Dispute Arbitrable?

Text: 11 Initially, the appellant earnestly contends that the question of arbitrability should be determined by the arbitration board in this case, saying that the lower court should not have decided the issue of arbitrability in view of the contract provision that any grievance could be arbitrated. While there is much to say in favor of appellant's argument, 4 the courts have, with practical uniformity, held the question of arbitrability to be an issue for the courts — that is, the courts decide if the particular grievance is arbitrable under the terms of the collective bargaining contract. 5 This is true even where the contract specifies that any controversy relating to the meaning or interpretation or application of the contract is arbitrable. 6 Perhaps, if the contract expresses that the arbitrators will decide arbitrability, the courts would refrain from a decision. 7 We will not delve into the intricacies or the merits of either side of this problem. 12 The general policy considerations of promoting harmonious interplay and propitious relations between labor and management, which will achieve industrial peace, have been given their full weight in the interpretation of collective bargaining contracts. With this search for true tranquillity in the industrial world ever in mind, the courts have crystalized from the supersaturation of litigation since 1947 several rules of construction in the interpretation of collective bargaining contracts to arbitrate. We consider the general rule to be that a dispute between labor and management is arbitrable where the dispute is specifically contracted to be arbitrable or generally where the contract expresses a broad arbitration policy, i. e., a general arbitration clause; 8 but controversies are not arbitrable where the controversy in question is specifically excluded, where because of a listing of many arbitrable incidences the instant controversy is impliedly excluded, 9 and where the controversy or grievance concerns violation of a no strike clause. 10 13 In the case at bar, not only does the contract specifically state that grievances arising from discharges may be arbitrated but it also has the general provision that any difference arising between the Company and any employee as to the meaning, application or interpretation of the provisions of the contract may constitute a grievance and, if not settled, may be arbitrated. We cannot agree with the trial court that the parties contemplated the contract to cover only normal operations free from strike, nor can we agree that the striking employees were not in the employ of the Company. 11 The contract implies a broader, even an inclusive, coverage. The preamble of the contract states: 14 Article I — Preamble 15 The intent and purpose of the parties hereto is that this agreement will promote, improve, and maintain industrial economic and harmonious relations between the Union and the Company and to set forth herein the basic agreement covering rates of pay, hours of work, and conditions of employment to be observed between the Company and its employees. 16 We cannot interpret the contract to say that grievances arising from a discharge of employees for strike misconduct, where the employees were striking under the terms of the contract, would be impliedly excluded from arbitration. Neither did the settlement memorandum impliedly exclude from arbitration any arbitrable matter in the contract. The question of which strikers are lawfully entitled to reinstatement must be considered an arbitrable matter rather than left to the unilateral determination of the Company in order to preserve the terms of the contract relating to seniority, retirement, etc., and to carry out its general intent and purpose. 17