Opinion ID: 196272
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Onanibaku Grievance

Text: 1. The Onanibaku Grievance -5- The Company argued on summary judgment that the Onanibaku grievance was not arbitrable under the collectivebargaining agreement because Onanibaku alleged that his discipline was discriminatorily motivated. Article 5 of the collective bargaining agreement provides that [n]o dispute regarding alleged discrimination shall be subject to grievance or arbitration unless no remedy therefore is provided by State or federal law. The Union argues that the Company's position was without justification because the terms of the grievance filed by the Union on behalf of Onanibaku alleged merely that he was discharged without just cause; it did not mention discrimination. The Union points out that, as the certified bargaining representative, the labor organization, not the employee, is the master of the grievance. See Republic Steel Corp. v. Maddox, 379 U.S. 650, 653 (1965) (union has no duty to pursue unmeritorious grievances); Miller v. United States Postal Serv., 985 F.2d 9, 12 (1st Cir. 1993). The Union also points out that it wrote the Company a letter specifically stating that it was not alleging discrimination. We think the district court acted within its discretion in concluding that the Company's defense to the arbitrability of the Onanibaku grievance was not so frivolous, unreasonable, or without justification as to warrant imposition of attorneys' fees. The fact is that Onanibaku alleged, prior to the filing of the grievance, that his discipline was discriminatorily motivated. Moreover, he filed a charge with the Massachusetts -6- Commission Against Discrimination, and filed civil rights complaints with the Northampton Police, alleging that the disciplinary action was discriminatorily motivated. Under these circumstances, we do not find it so unreasonable for the Company to assert the position that a claim of discrimination was at the heart of the Onanibaku grievance, and that the grievance was therefore not arbitrable. This was an issue of substantive arbitrability, thesignificance ofwhich weshall presentlydiscuss.