Court Opinion

ID: 9477957
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 06:35:53.250427+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:46:08.772422
License: Public Domain

GILMORE, District Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent from the Court’s opinion in the within matter. It appears to me that the language of the collective bargaining agreement here at issue, coupled with the arbitrability of the substantive issue of appellant’s asserted improper discharge supports the district court’s decision that the procedural issue of timeliness was within the exclusive jurisdiction of the arbitrator, who rejected arbitration because appellant’s grievance was untimely filed. I therefore feel the district court should be affirmed.
It is hornbook law that, unless a collective bargaining agreement indicates by “the most forceful evidence” an intention to exclude a matter from arbitration, the matter should be presumed arbitrable. United Steelworkers v. Warrior & Gulf Navigation Co., 363 U.S. 574, 585, 80 S.Ct. 1347, 1354, 4 L.Ed.2d 1409 (1960). The presumption of arbitrability applies “unless it can be said with positive assurance that the arbitration clause is not susceptible of an interpretation that covers the asserted dispute.” Communications Workers of America v. Michigan Bell Telephone Co., 820 F.2d 189 (6th Cir.1987) (quoting United Steelworkers, 363 U.S. at 582-83, 80 S.Ct. at 1352-53).
Appellant claims that the arbitration clause of the collective bargaining agreement excludes the issue of procedural timeliness from consideration of the arbitrator.1 *876Accordingly, appellant argues that the procedural timeliness of a grievance is an issue to be decided by the court.
I clearly disagree with the majority’s adopting this position. It appears to me that the majority’s interpretation of the collective bargaining agreement is misplaced.
Numerous courts have considered the precise issue at bar, and have universally concluded that procedural disputes involving timeliness are within the jurisdiction of the arbitrator. See Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers’ International Union, Local v. Chevron Chemical Company, 815 F.2d 338 (5th Cir.1987); Local Union 370 of the International Union of Operating Engineers v. Morrison-Knudsen Company, Inc., 786 F.2d 1356, 1358 (9th Cir.1986); Denhardt v. Trailways, Inc., 767 F.2d 687, 689 (10th Cir.1985); Beer, Soft Drink, Water, et al. v. Metropolitan Distributors, Inc., et. al., 763 F.2d 300, 302 (7th Cir.1985); Automotive, Petroleum and Allied Industries Employees Union, Local No. 618, v. Town & Country Ford, Inc., 709 F.2d 509, 514 (8th Cir.1983); Chauffeurs, Teamsters and Helpers, Local Union No. 765 v. Stroehmann Brothers Company, 625 F.2d 1092 (3d Cir.1980).
And this Court, in Chambers v. Beaunit Corporation, 404 F.2d 128, (6th Cir.1968), held:
The arbitrator in the present case never considered the merits of plaintiff’s claim because he held that the grievance was untimely filed. The question of whether a grievance is timely filed is a procedural question, which, under the Supreme Court’s holding in John Wiley & Sons, Inc. v. Livingston, 376 U.S. 543, 84 S.Ct. 909, 11 L.Ed.2d 898, is left to the arbitrator for decision.
Id. at 131.
It is clear to me that if the substantive issues of the grievance are arbitrable under the collective bargaining agreement, then the procedural issue of timeliness is exclusively within the jurisdiction of the arbitrator.
For these reasons, I dissent from the decision of the majority, and would affirm the district court.

. The section in question reads as follows: Step (c)—If the grievance is not then satisfac*876torily settled and if the grievance is otherwise arbitrable under this Agreement, it may be referred to arbitration in strict accordance with the provisions of this Agreement pertaining to arbitration, but not otherwise, provided, however, that if. the union fails to notify the Company in writing by registered or certified United States mail within 15 calendar days after the Company gives its answer in writing to a grievance at Step (b) of the grievance procedure, above, then the Union shall be conclusively presumed to have accepted the Company's answer thereto and said grievance shall not thereafter be arbitrable.