Professional Documents
Culture Documents
2d 687
119 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 3226, 103 Lab.Cas. P 11,592
After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this three-judge panel has
determined unanimously that oral argument would not be of material assistance
in the determination of this appeal. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a); Tenth Cir.R. 10(e).
The cause is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
Monty D. Denhardt brings this appeal from the trial court's grant of summary
judgment in favor of Trailways. The appellant worked as a bus driver for
Trailways. He was a union member and a collective bargaining agreement was
in effect between the union and Trailways which provided for arbitration
procedures.
4
"Within
ten (10) days after the written grievance has been delivered to the Company
representative, the aggrieved Employee will be accorded a hearing, if requested...."
5
Because of the asserted failure to comply with the time requirements for a
hearing, the appellant urged that the provisions of Article 16, Section 12(A),
were triggered to relieve him of the necessity of submitting his dispute to
arbitration. The section stated:
6
"The
failure of the Company or the Union to comply with the time limits as
heretofore set out in Article 15 and this Article [Article 16], unless the parties agree
in writing to extend or waive the limitations, will result in the forfeit of the case and
it will be deemed closed."
7
Trailways moved for summary judgment; it argued that as a matter of law the
appellant's exclusive remedy under the collective bargaining agreement was
arbitration. The appellant, on cross-motion for summary judgment, countered
that the contract language disclosed that the time requirements were not subject
to arbitration. The appellant argued he could justifiably treat the case as closed
and proceed to seek relief in federal court.
Thus the single issue before the trial court was whether the time requirements
in the contract were subject to arbitration. Article 16, Section 11, sets out the
arbitration procedures. The Article as a whole does not provide for any method
other than arbitration for dispute resolution. Article 16, Section 14, which the
trial court found dispositive, states that arbitration is the exclusive means for
resolving grievances.
10
"Only
Means for Settling Disputes: It is understood and agreed that the provisions
of this Article and Article 15 shall be the sole and exclusive means of settling any
dispute or controversy arising out of the application of [sic] interpretation of this
Contract." (Italics in original.)
11
The plain meaning of the section is that the arbitration procedures of Article 16
11
are controlling with regard to "any" dispute stemming from the interpretation or
application of the collective bargaining agreement. The trial court concluded
that the language of Section 14 indicated that procedural issues such as the time
requirements were subject to arbitration. Under the contract the appellant was
required to submit his claims concerning the timeliness of the hearing and the
propriety of his discharge to the arbitrators, not to the courts. Therefore the
appellant was precluded as a matter of law from seeking a judicial resolution of
his grievances.
12
13
14
The appellant argues that the procedural dispute as to the time requirements is
beyond the scope of the arbitration process. The contract is not susceptible to
such an interpretation. There is no "positive assurance" in the language of the
collective bargaining agreement that a dispute over the failure to meet
procedural requirements in non-arbitrable. See United Steelworkers v. Warrior
& Gulf Navigation Co., 363 U.S. 574, 582, 80 S.Ct. 1347, 1352, 4 L.Ed.2d
1409. The appellant also fails to acknowledge the interrelation of procedural
and substantive issues in labor disputes. While the federal courts recognize their
16
17
We must conclude that the procedural dispute as to compliance with this time
limit for conducting the hearing was a matter for arbitration. There is no
forceful indication of an intent to exclude these procedural matters from
arbitration. The arbitration clause in the contract is in all-encompassing terms.
Accordingly, the appellant's sole remedy was to proceed to arbitrate both his
substantive claim and its attendant procedural aspect. The appellant cannot
resort to the federal courts for the resolution of issues which have been
contractually reserved for the arbitrator alone. Republic Steel v. Maddox, 379
U.S. 650, 85 S.Ct. 614, 13 L.Ed.2d 580; NLRB v. Northeast Oklahoma City
Manufacturing Co., 631 F.2d 669, 673 (10th Cir.1980). Summary judgment for
Trailways was proper.
18
AFFIRMED.