AT&T Techs. v. Communs. Workers of Am. - 475 U.S. 643, 106 S. Ct. 1415 (1986)

Rule:

The question of arbitrability, whether a collective-bargaining agreement creates a duty for the parties to arbitrate the particular grievance, is undeniably an issue for judicial determination. Unless the parties clearly and unmistakably provide otherwise, the question of whether the parties agreed to arbitrate is to be decided by the court, not the arbitrator.

Facts:

Petitioner At&T Technologies, Inc., a communications company, laid off telephone installation workers at one of its facilities and transferred the same number of such workers in from facilities in other states, despite the contention of the respondent Communications Workers of America et al., installers' union, that a provision of their collective bargaining agreement barred layoffs except when necessitated by lack of work. Petitioner contended that the provision in question only prescribed the order of layoffs, and refused to submit the dispute to arbitration on the theory that it was covered by another provision of the contract, which stated that the company's exercise of certain management functions, such as the hiring and placement of employees, was not subject to the contract's arbitration clause. Respondent union filed an action against petitioner pursuant to § 301(a) of the Labor Management Relations Act, 29 U.S.C.S. § 185(a), to compel arbitration of a grievance concerning layoffs under the terms of a collective bargaining agreement. The appellate court affirmed the district court's order directing petitioner to arbitration on the grounds that the threshold issue of arbitrability was to be determined by the arbitrator. Petitioner sought review.

Issue:

Did the appellate court err in finding that it was for the arbitrator to decide arbitrability?

Answer:

Yes.

Conclusion:

The Court vacated the judgment of the appellate court and held that it was for the district court, not the arbitrator, to decide the threshold question of arbitrability. The court explained that it was for the court to interpret the agreement and to determine whether the parties intended to arbitrate grievances concerning layoffs based on a lack of work as determined by petitioner. Thus, if the court found that the agreement so provided, then it was for the arbitrator to decide the relative merits of the parties' substantive interpretations of the agreement. The court was to decide, in the first instance, whether the dispute was to be resolved through arbitration.