Opinion ID: 489363
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Legality of Section 8.13

Text: 14 MBT argues that interpretation of section 8.13 of the collective bargaining agreement as providing for payment of fringe benefits or pension credits to union staff representatives would violate section 302(a) of the Labor Management Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. Sec. 186(a), which makes it unlawful for any employer ... to pay, lend, or deliver, any money or other thing of value ... to any representative of any of his employees. While the district court did not resolve this issue, it did conclude that CWA was seeking only leave time extension, and not additional benefits. The district court explained that CWA's contractual contention is that it can double the effective length of the [twelve year] limit by classifying [Anderson and Echlin] as on 'AU time' for 120 working days per year, and on 'class one leave' for the year's remaining 120 working days. Moreover, counsel for CWA stipulated during oral argument that it is seeking only leave time extension and that pension or fringe benefits are not sought in any way, shape or form. 15 When a party seeks to avoid arbitration on the ground that a contract clause is illegal, a district court may grant relief if the contract clause 'on its face violates federal labor law or is contrary to federal labor policy.'  R.B. Electric, Inc. v. Local 569, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, 781 F.2d 1440, 1442 (9th Cir.1986) (quoting Alpha Beta, 736 F.2d at 1376). Arbitration will not be precluded unless  'all possible interpretations of the contract provision would result in a conflict [WITH FEDERAL LABOR LAW].'  781 f.2d at 1442 (quoting alpha betA, 736 f.2d at 1377). Section 8.13 could obviously be interpreted as providing only for leave time and not for payment of fringe benefits or pension credits. Since section 8.13 is susceptible to a lawful interpretation, it must be left to the arbitrator to determine the proper interpretation. 4 781 F.2d at 1442.