International Ass'n of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO, Lodge No. 2504 v. Intercontinental Mfg. Co., Inc.

• Citation: 812 F.2d 219
• Decision Date: 12 March 1987
• Docket Number: AFL-CI,LODGE,No. 86-1752,86-1752
• Parties: 125 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2907, 106 Lab.Cas. P 12,294 INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS AND AEROSPACE WORKERS,NO. 2504, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. INTERCONTINENTAL MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC., Defendant-Appellee. Summary Calendar.
• Court: United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit)

Page 219

812 F.2d 219

125 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2907, 106 Lab.Cas. P 12,294

INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS AND AEROSPACE WORKERS, AFL-CIO, LODGE NO. 2504, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. INTERCONTINENTAL MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC., Defendant-Appellee.

No. 86-1752

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit.

March 12, 1987.

Rod Tanner, James M. Whitton, McGee, Tanner, Coble & Whitton, Ft. Worth, Tex., for plaintiffs-appellants.

Thomas A. Graves, Dallas, Tex., for defendant-appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas.

Before CLARK, Chief Judge, GARWOOD, and HILL, Circuit Judges.

CLARK, Chief Judge:

The plaintiff in this case, Lodge No. 2504 of the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO ("Lodge No. 2504"), appeals the district court's grant of the defendant's motion for summary judgment. We affirm.

I. Background

The defendant, Intercontinental Manufacturing, Inc. ("Intercontinental") produces shell casings for explosive devices at its plant in Garland, Texas. Lodge No. 2504 is the certified bargaining representative for some of Intercontinental's employees. On March 14, 1985, Intercontinental discharged four of those employees for violation of a company rule prohibiting "bringing, possessing or using intoxicating liquors ... on company premises." Three of the employees, Owens, Forbis and Foster, admitted they had beer in their possession in the company's parking lot after their shift had ended. The fourth employee, Gandera, admitted having beer in his possession in the parking lot during his lunch hour.

Lodge No. 2504 submitted a written grievance to Intercontinental contesting the discharges on the ground that the "punishment is too severe for [the] alleged offense." Intercontinental denied the union's request for reinstatement of the employees and refused to submit the dispute to arbitration.

Intercontinental asserted the contract did not require arbitration of the dispute. The contract lists the rule on alcohol as a "Group III" rule and provides that an "employee may be discharged for violation of Group III rules." The same article of the contract provides that:

Discipline exercised by the company pursuant to this article will be subject to grievance and arbitration only to the extent of whether or not the act was committed for which the employee was disciplined and not for mitigation of any penalty assessed by the company under this article.

Lodge No. 2504 asserts that the rule prohibiting alcohol was not intended to apply to non-work areas and non-work time. The union asserts that the intended meaning of the rule is an arbitrable issue because the arbitration clause of the contract states, "Any grievance that cannot be settled between the union and management in accordance with the provisions of the foregoing sections may be submitted to an independent arbitrator...."

The main thrust of the union's argument is that the contract requires that the company have good cause to discharge an employee, even when the employee admittedly violated a Group III rule. The union points to the contract language that an "employee may be discharged for violation of a Group III rule," (emphasis added) combined with later language in the same article stating "No employee shall be discharged, demoted, or otherwise disciplined without good and sufficient cause." Also, the article on management rights states "the company shall have the right to decision, subject to procedures and conditions herein agreed upon, concerning ... discharge for proper cause." (emphasis added).

In short, the union contends that the contract does not exclude discharges for violations of Group III rules from the requirement that discharges be for good cause and the provision that unresolved grievances are arbitrable. Based on the contract and the long established presumption of arbitrability, Steel Workers v. Warrior & Gulf Navigation Co., 363 U.S. 574, 582-83, 80 S.Ct. 1347, 1352-53, 4 L.Ed.2d 1409 (1960), the union asserts that the dispute should be submitted to an arbitrator.

II. Arbitrability

In the recent case of AT & T Technologies v. Communications Workers, --- U.S. ----, 106 S.Ct. 1415, 89 L.Ed.2d 648 (1986), the Supreme Court reiterated the principles that govern the arbitrability of grievances under collective-bargaining agreements. The cornerstone of these principles is that the duty to submit a dispute to arbitration arises from contracts, therefore a party cannot be compelled to arbitrate a dispute if he has not agreed to do so. Id. at 1418.

The second principle is that the question of whether the parties agreed to arbitrate a dispute is to be decided by the court, not the arbitrator. Id. The third principle is that courts should not determine the merits of the underlying grievance, even if it appears to be frivolous. Id. at 1419. The court is only to determine whether the grievance is arbitrable.

The fourth and final principle is that when a contract contains an arbitration clause, there is a presumption of arbitrability unless the court determines "with positive assurance that the arbitration clause is not susceptible of an interpretation that covers the asserted dispute. Doubts should be resolved in favor of coverage." Id., quoting Warrior & Gulf, 363 U.S. at 583, 80 S.Ct. at 1352-53. See also International Chemical Workers v. Day & Zimmermann, 791 F.2d 366, 368-69 (5th Cir.1986).

This case is similar to AT & T Technologies. In that case, the company laid off workers based on the...