Granite Rock Co. v. Int'l Bhd. of Teamsters

Citation177 L.Ed.2d 567,130 S.Ct. 2847,561 U.S. 287
Decision Date24 June 2010
Docket NumberNo. 08–1214.,08–1214.
PartiesGRANITE ROCK COMPANY, Petitioner, v. INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS et al.
CourtUnited States Supreme Court

Garry G. Mathiason

, San Francisco, CA, for petitioner.

Robert Bonsall

, Sacramento, CA, for respondent Teamsters Local 287.

Peter D. Nussbaum

, San Francisco, CA, for respondent International Brotherhood of Teamsters.

Arthur R. Miller

, New York, NY, Garry G. Mathiason, Alan S. Levins, Adam J. Peters, Rachelle L. Wills, Sofija Anderson, Littler Mendelson, San Francisco, CA, for petitioner.

Stephen P. Berzon

, Peter D. Nussbaum, Peder J. V. Thoreen, Altshuler Berzon LLP, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent International Brotherhood of Teamsters.

David Rosenfeld

, Weinberg, Roger & Rosenfeld, Alameda, CA, Duane B. Beeson, Robert Bonsall, Holly K. Herndon Beeson, Tayer & Bodine, Oakland, CA, for Respondents.Opinion

Justice THOMAS

delivered the opinion of the Court.

This case involves an employer's claims against a local union and the union's international parent for economic damages arising out of a 2004 strike. The claims turn in part on whether a collective-bargaining agreement (CBA) containing a no-strike provision was validly formed during the strike period. The employer contends that it was, while the unions contend that it was not. Because the CBA contains an arbitration clause, we first address whether the parties' dispute over the CBA's ratification date was a matter for the District Court or an arbitrator to resolve. We conclude that it was a matter for judicial resolution. Next, we address whether the Court of Appeals erred in declining the employer's request to recognize a new federal cause of action under § 301(a) of the Labor Management Relations Act, 1947 (LMRA), 61 Stat. 156, 29 U.S.C. § 185(a)

, for the international union's alleged tortious interference with the CBA. The Court of Appeals did not err in declining this request.

I

Petitioner Granite Rock Company is a concrete and building materials company that has operated in California since 1900. Granite Rock employs approximately 800 employees under different labor contracts with several unions, including respondent International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local 287 (Local). Granite Rock and Local were parties to a 1999 CBA that expired in April 2004. The parties' attempt to negotiate a new CBA hit an impasse and, on June 9, 2004, Local members initiated a strike in support of their contract demands.1

The strike continued until July 2, 2004, when the parties reached agreement on the terms of a new CBA. The CBA contained a no-strike clause but did not directly address union members' liability for any strike-related damages Granite Rock may have incurred before the new CBA was negotiated but after the prior CBA had expired. At the end of the negotiating session on the new CBA, Local's business representative, George Netto, approached Granite Rock about executing a separate “back-to-work” agreement that would, among other things, hold union members harmless for damages incurred during the June 2004 strike. Netto did not make execution of such an agreement a condition of Local's ratification of the CBA, or of Local's decision to cease picketing. Thus, Local did not have a back-to-work or hold-harmless agreement in place when it voted to ratify the CBA on July 2, 2004.

Respondent International Brotherhood of Teamsters (IBT), which had advised Local throughout the CBA negotiations and whose leadership and members supported the June strike, opposed Local's decision to return to work without a back-to-work agreement shielding both Local and IBT members from liability for strike-related damages. In an effort to secure such an agreement, IBT instructed Local's members not to honor their agreement to return to work on July 5, and instructed Local's leaders to continue the work stoppage until Granite Rock agreed to hold Local and IBT members free from liability for the June strike. Netto demanded such an agreement on July 6, but Granite Rock refused the request and informed Local that the company would view any continued strike activity as a violation of the new CBA's no-strike clause. IBT and Local responded by announcing a company-wide strike that involved numerous facilities and hundreds of workers, including members of IBT locals besides Local 287.

According to Granite Rock, IBT not only instigated this strike; it supported and directed it. IBT provided pay and benefits to union members who refused to return to work, directed Local's negotiations with Granite Rock, supported Local financially during the strike period with a $1.2 million loan, and represented to Granite Rock that IBT had unilateral authority to end the work stoppage in exchange for a hold-harmless agreement covering IBT members within and outside Local's bargaining unit.

On July 9, 2004, Granite Rock sued IBT and Local in the District Court, seeking an injunction against the ongoing strike and strike-related damages. Granite Rock's complaint, originally and as amended, invoked federal jurisdiction under LMRA § 301(a), alleged that the July 6 strike violated Local's obligations under the CBA's no-strike provision, and asked the District Court to enjoin the strike because the hold-harmless dispute giving rise to the strike was an arbitrable grievance. See Boys Markets, Inc. v. Retail Clerks, 398 U.S. 235, 237–238, 253–254, 90 S.Ct. 1583, 26 L.Ed.2d 199 (1970)

(holding that federal courts may enjoin a strike where a CBA contemplates arbitration of the dispute that occasions the strike). The unions conceded that LMRA § 301(a) gave the District Court jurisdiction over the suit but opposed Granite Rock's complaint, asserting that the CBA was not validly ratified on July 2 (or at any other time relevant to the July 2004 strike) and, thus, its no-strike clause did not provide a basis for Granite Rock's claims challenging the strike.

The District Court initially denied Granite Rock's request to enforce the CBA's no-strike provision because Granite Rock was unable to produce evidence that the CBA was ratified on July 2.App. 203–213. Shortly after the District Court ruled, however, a Local member testified that Netto had put the new CBA to a ratification vote on July 2, and that the voting Local members unanimously approved the agreement. Based on this statement and supporting testimony from 12 other employees, Granite Rock moved for a new trial on its injunction and damages claims.

On August 22, while that motion was pending, Local conducted a second successful “ratification” vote on the CBA, and on September 13, the day the District Court was scheduled to hear Granite Rock's motion, the unions called off their strike. Although their return to work mooted Granite Rock's request for an injunction, the District Court proceeded with the hearing and granted Granite Rock a new trial on its damages claims. The parties proceeded with discovery and Granite Rock amended its complaint, which already alleged federal2 claims for breach of the CBA against both Local and IBT, to add federal inducement of breach and interference with contract (hereinafter tortious interference) claims against IBT.

IBT and Local both moved to dismiss. Among other things, IBT argued that Granite Rock could not plead a federal tort claim under § 301(a) because that provision supports a federal cause of action only for breach of contract. The District Court agreed and dismissed Granite Rock's tortious interference claims. The District Court did not, however, grant Local's separate motion to send the parties' dispute over the CBA's ratification date to arbitration.3 The District Court held that whether the CBA was ratified on July 2 or August 22 was an issue for the court to decide, and submitted the question to a jury. The jury reached a unanimous verdict that Local ratified the CBA on July 2, 2004. The District Court entered the verdict and ordered the parties to proceed with arbitration on Granite Rock's breach-of-contract claims for strike-related damages.

The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part. See 546 F.3d 1169 (2008)

. The Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's dismissal of Granite Rock's tortious interference claims against IBT. See id., at 1170–1175. But it disagreed with the District Court's determination that the date of the CBA's ratification was a matter for judicial resolution. See id., at 1176–1178.

The Court of Appeals reasoned that the parties' dispute over this issue was governed by the CBA's arbitration clause because the clause clearly covered the related strike claims, the “national policy favoring arbitration” required that any ambiguity about the scope of the parties' arbitration clause be resolved in favor of arbitrability, and, in any event, Granite Rock had “implicitly” consented to arbitrate the ratification-date dispute “by suing under the contract.” Id., at 1178 (internal quotation marks omitted). We granted certiorari. See 557 U.S. 933, 129 S.Ct. 2865, 174 L.Ed.2d 575 (2009).

II

It is well settled in both commercial and labor cases that whether parties have agreed to “submi[t] a particular dispute to arbitration” is typically an ‘issue for judicial determination.’ Howsam v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., 537 U.S. 79, 83, 123 S.Ct. 588, 154 L.Ed.2d 491 (2002)

(quoting AT & T Technologies, Inc. v. Communications Workers, 475 U.S. 643, 649, 106 S.Ct. 1415, 89 L.Ed.2d 648 (1986)); see John Wiley & Sons, Inc. v. Livingston, 376 U.S. 543, 546–547, 84 S.Ct. 909, 11 L.Ed.2d 898 (1964). It is similarly well settled that where the dispute at issue concerns contract formation, the dispute is generally for courts to decide. See, e.g., First Options of Chicago, Inc. v. Kaplan, 514 U.S. 938, 944, 115 S.Ct. 1920, 131 L.Ed.2d 985 (1995)

(“When deciding whether the parties agreed to arbitrate a certain matter ... courts generally ... should apply ordinary ... principles that...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1194 cases
  • Germaine Judge v. Nijjar Realty, Inc.
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • December 17, 2014
    ......468, 478, 109 S.Ct. 1248, 103 L.Ed.2d 488 ; see Granite Rock Co. v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters (2010) ......
  • Douglass v. Serenivision, Inc.
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • February 8, 2018
    .......3d 359, 376 P.3d 506, quoting 229 Cal.Rptr.3d 63 Granite Rock Co. v. Teamsters (2010) 561 U.S. 287, 299, 130 S.Ct. ......
  • Brito v. Major Energy Elec. Servs., LLC
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Maryland
    • January 8, 2021
    ......, the dispute is generally for courts to decide." Granite Rock Co. v. Int'l Brotherhood of Teamsters , 561 U.S. 287, ......
  • Cal. Ass'n of Private Postsecondary Sch. v. DeVos, Civil Action No. 17-999 (RDM)
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Columbia
    • January 31, 2020
    ......1740, 179 L.Ed.2d 742 (2011) ; Granite Rock Co. v. Int'l Brotherhood of Teamsters , 561 U.S. 287, ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 firm's commentaries
6 books & journal articles
  • The Uneasy Relationship Between Arbitration and Bankruptcy.
    • United States
    • American Bankruptcy Law Journal Vol. 96 No. 4, December 2022
    • December 22, 2022
    ...to enforce agreements to arbitrate and to place such agreements upon the same footing as other contracts." Granite Rock Co. v. Teamsters, 561 U.S. 287, 302, 130 S.Ct. 2847, 177 L.Ed.2d 567 (2010) (internal quotation marks omitted). Or in another formulation: The policy is to make "arbitrati......
  • Carve-Outs and Injunctive Relief in Arbitration Cases.
    • United States
    • Defense Counsel Journal Vol. 88 No. 1, January 2021
    • January 1, 2021
    ...America, District 17, 531 U.S. 57, 121 S. Ct. 462, 148 L. Ed. 2d 354 (2000); Granite Rock Co. v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, 130 S. Ct. 2847, 177 L. Ed. 2d 567 (2010). (5) Perry v. Thomas, 482 U.S. 483, 107 S. Ct. 2520, 96 L. Ed.2d 426 (1987). (6) Prima Paint, 388 U.S. 395. (7) ......
  • Arbitration Waiver and Prejudice.
    • United States
    • Michigan Law Review Vol. 119 No. 2, November 2020
    • November 1, 2020
    ...(176.) Lamps Plus, Inc., 139 S. Ct. at 1415 (alteration in original) (quoting Granite Rock Co. v. Int'l Brotherhood of Teamsters, 561 U.S. 287,299 (177.) See generally Cox I, 790 F.3d 1112, 1116-17 (10th Cir. 2015) (explaining that raising the possibility of arbitration early helps courts m......
  • Settlement and ADR
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Litigating Sexual Harassment & Sex Discrimination Cases Resolution without trial
    • May 6, 2022
    ...concern the scope of the arbitration clause and its enforceability.” Granite Rock Co. v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters , 561 U.S. 287, 297 (2010) (citations omitted). Obviously, putting that decision in the hands of the individual, panel, or organization which has already been sele......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT