Court Opinion

ID: 9694266
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 17:33:16.029819+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:19:58.332045
License: Public Domain

*13Loiselle, J.
(dissenting). These consolidated appeals present two questions. The first is: Does the contract at issue here assign to the arbitrators the duty of deciding which disputes are arbitrable, or is that decision one for the courts? I agree with the majority opinion that this contract does not assign that duty to the arbitrators. The arbitration clause requires arbitration of “[mjatters relating to the interpretation and application of the Articles and Sections of this Agreement.” I understand that we have decided to follow the United States Supreme Court in arbitration matters. The language of this arbitration clause tracks that of a contract which the United States Supreme Court held left the decision as to which disputes are arbitrable to the courts. The language in that contract required arbitration of all disputes “ ‘as to the meaning, interpretation and application of the provisions of this agreement.’ ” United Steelworkers of America v. American Mfg. Co., 363 U.S. 564, 565, 80 S. Ct. 1343, 4 L. Ed. 2d 1403.
Once the decision as to which disputes are arbi-trable has been determined to be one for the court to make, the second question arises: Is this dispute arbitrable? It is in answering this question that I disagree with the majority. If we follow the United States Supreme Court, and apply the same test it applied in United Steelworkers of America v. American Mfg. Co., supra, this dispute is arbitrable.
United Steelworkers of America v. American Mfg. Co., supra, involved a grievance which the Court of Appeals had determined to be frivolous and patently baseless, thus not subject to arbitration. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that even frivolous, baseless claims must go to arbitration if “the party seeking arbitration is making a claim which *14on its face is governed by the contract.” Id., 568. The court explained: “The courts . . . have no business weighing the merits of the grievance, considering whether there is equity in a particular claim, or determining whether there is particular language in the written instrument which will support the claim. . . . The processing of even frivolous claims may have therapeutic values of which those who are not a part of the plant environment may be quite unaware.” Ibid. I submit that the majority opinion weighs the merits and looks for language in the written instrument to support the claim.
The grievance in this case is a claim by the union that the “contract provided for a review of the orders and decision of the Policemen’s and Firemen’s Retirement Board.” The majority tests the arbitrability of the dispute by asking whether the agreement incorporated the provisions of the police pension plans, or whether the parties signified their willingness to submit pension disputes to arbitration. I think those are the wrong yardsticks. The contract clearly indicates the willingness of the parties to submit to arbitration disputes concerning the application and interpretation of the contract, and one party has asserted that the contract should be interpreted to provide for review of the decision of the pension board. This is a dispute concerning interpretation of the contract, and it must go to arbitration.
Applying the test of United Steelworkers of America v. American Mfg. Co., supra, “whether the party seeking arbitration is making a claim which on its face is governed by the contract,” it is clear that this claim, that the contract provides for review, is determined by the contract. The fact that *15examination of the contract shows that no review is provided for does not make the dispute less arbi-trable, but more arbitrable. This is a claim not governed by statute, by general contract law or, indeed, by any authority other than the contract itself. Only by looking to the contract may its validity or lack of validity be seen.
I would find error, vacate the judgments and remand with direction to deny the injunction and order the parties to proceed with arbitration.
In this opinion Bogdanski, J., concurred.