Court Opinion

ID: 9528160
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 03:37:50.275522+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:19:55.079075
License: Public Domain

*161Munson J.
(dissenting)—We read the same cases, apply them to the same facts, but I reach an opposite result. There is a strong public policy, both in the federal and state labor law, that parties to a collective bargaining agreement which contains an arbitration clause will submit their disputes and controversies to that forum. United Steelworkers v. Warrior & Gulf Navigation Co., 363 U.S. 574, 4 L. Ed. 2d 1409, 80 S. Ct. 1347 (1960); Retail Store Employees Local 631 v. Totem Sales, Inc., 20 Wn. App. 278, 281-82, 579 P.2d 1019 (1978). This is particularly true when there is a no-strike clause in the collective bargaining agreement, along with an arbitration clause. United Steelworkers v. Warrior & Gulf Navigation Co., supra at 583. Two exceptions to this general rule are: (1) either an express provision excluding a particular grievance from arbitration or (2) the most forceful evidence of a purpose to exclude the claim from arbitration. United Steelworkers v. Warrior & Gulf Navigation Co., supra; International Ass'n of Machinists v. Howmet Corp., 466 F.2d 1249 (9th Cir. 1972). The cases are legion setting forth these principles. Rather than cite them extensively, those cases cited epitomize the rule.
This collective bargaining agreement sets forth the grievance procedure in section 6. As noted by the majority, it does not specifically exclude particular grievances. Section 6(1), setting forth the grievance procedure, states:
(1) Except as herein clearly and explicitly limited in the express terms of this agreement the right of the company in all respects to manage its business shall be unimpaired.
Section 9 provides an arbitration procedure for "a dispute over the interpretation of the terms of this Agreement," and goes on to state:
(c) It is distinctly understood and agreed that the Board of Arbitration is not vested with the power to change, alter or modify this Agreement in any of its parts. The arbitrator shall not decide on any subject, the condition of which is not specifically treated in this *162contract, but only on the contractual obligations that are specifically provided in this Agreement.
(Italics mine.)
Even though there is a policy for arbitration, parties are bound to arbitrate only those disputes which, under a fair construction of the collective bargaining agreement, they have bound themselves to arbitrate. As stated in Atkinson v. Sinclair Ref. Co., 370 U.S. 238, 241, 8 L. Ed. 2d 462, 82 S. Ct. 1318, 1320 (1962): "arbitration is a matter of contract and a party cannot be required to submit to arbitration any dispute which he has not agreed to so submit."
The collective bargaining agreement which these parties signed does not cover a grooming code. Thus, the arbitrator has no power to consider such a matter merely because there is a grievance. Under this collective bargaining agreement, the arbitrator can only decide issues specifically provided therein. Flintkote Co. v. Textile Workers, 243 F. Supp. 205 (D.N.J. 1965); Boeing Co. v. IUAW, 231 F. Supp. 930 (E.D. Pa. 1964). This court cannot supplement the parties' agreement and include within it something the parties did not include. Local 210, Int'l Printing Pressmen v. Times-World Corp., 381 F. Supp. 149 (W.D. Va. 1974). Thus, I would find that the parties have forcefully excluded this issue from their agreement; that exclusion is clear and unmistakable because a grooming code was not included within the agreement. United Steelworkers v. Warrior & Gulf Navigation Co., supra; Murphy Diesel Co. v. NLRB, 454 F.2d 303 (7th Cir. 1971); International Ass'n of Machinists v. Howmet Corp., supra.
The appellants seek in this court to bring this dispute within the discharge provision of the agreement and also raise a civil rights violation under United States Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title 7, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e (1976). None of these matters were presented at the trial court and should not be considered on appeal.
While I find arbitration is not applicable in this case, it is not the sole remedy available to Mr. Scott. I believe he has a right to proceed with his claim in a different forum. I do *163conclude that neither he nor his representative have a right to proceed to arbitration on this issue because it is not included within the collective bargaining agreement.
Reconsideration denied June 30, 1981.
Review denied by Supreme Court September 25, 1981.