HANFORD ATOMIC METAL TRADES v. ROCKWELL INTERN., C-84-115 RJM.

• Citation: 607 F. Supp. 19
• Decision Date: 17 September 1984
• Docket Number: No. C-84-115 RJM.,C-84-115 RJM.
• Parties: HANFORD ATOMIC METAL TRADES COUNCIL, a labor organization, Plaintiff, v. ROCKWELL INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, d/b/a Rockwell Hanford Operations, a corporation, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Washington

607 F. Supp. 19

HANFORD ATOMIC METAL TRADES COUNCIL, a labor organization, Plaintiff, v. ROCKWELL INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, d/b/a Rockwell Hanford Operations, a corporation, Defendant.

No. C-84-115 RJM.

United States District Court, E.D. Washington.

September 17, 1984.

Daryl D. Jonson, of Cowan, Walker, Jonson & Moore, Richland, Wash., for plaintiff.

Robert S. Gruhn, Chief Counsel, R.M. Carter, Staff Atty., Richland, Wash., for Hanford Operations.

ORDER

ROBERT J. McNICHOLS, Chief Judge.

This action, ostensibly brought on behalf of the Hanford Atomic Metal Trades Council HAMTC, seeks to enforce an arbitration clause and to compel Rockwell to submit the question of whether a newly developed work classification was improperly awarded. Cross-motions for summary judgment are currently pending. Pertinent chronology is as follows:

June 22, 1978 — United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners Local 2403 hereinafter 2403 and Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers Union Local I-369 hereinafter I-369 entered into an agreement inter se that decontamination work would be handled by I-369. This agreement was reaffirmed by the parties on February 5, 1982.

December 14, 1982 — Rockwell developed a new job classification under HAMTC's jurisdiction; namely, "decommissioning and decontamination" hereinafter D & D. As the result of an agreement between Rockwell and HAMTC, this work was awarded to I-369.

August 29, 1983 — Local 2403, believing that D & D work should have been given to its members, filed a ULP complaint with the NLRB which was subsequently withdrawn.

October 26, 1983 — 2403 sought permission from HAMTC to force Rockwell to arbitration on the issue. Leave was given for 2403 to pursue a grievance at its own expense. Rockwell refused to arbitrate.

February 1, 1984 — The instant action was filed in Benton County Superior Court and thereafter removed.

March 28, 1984 — HAMTC votes to "reaffirm the Council's position that no arbitration that affects more than one affiliate can be processed without the concurrence of our legally retained General Counsel."

Essentially, it is Rockwell's position that HAMTC is the sole bargaining agent for all craft unions within its jurisdiction under the express terms of the CBA and that it would be an unfair labor practice for the company to bypass HAMTC and deal directly with 2403. It is argued that HAMTC by-laws provide for resolution of jurisdictional disputes, and that internecine warfare among competing affiliate unions must be solved internally in accord with those by-laws. It is plaintiff's position that as a third-party beneficiary of the CBA, it is entitled to enforce the terms of that agreement in its own right and for its own benefit. It is further contended that interpretation of the substantive terms of the CBA, and more specifically, the arbitrability of a given dispute, is reserved to the arbitrator in the first instance, and that the Court's only function is to determine the validity and enforceability of the arbitration clause.

Frankly, plaintiff's position is not as groundless as it might at first glance appear. It is well-settled that:

Although it is true that the question of what issues are arbitrable is for the court, not the arbitrator, ... a court's determination of arbitrability must be based on the arbitration clause, not on the substantive contract clauses.

Laborers International Union v. Town Concrete Pipe, 680 F.2d 1284, 1285 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1039, 103 S.Ct. 453, 74 L.Ed.2d 606 (1982).

The rationale underlying this principle is explained in Haig Berberian, Inc. v. Cannery Warehousemen, 535 F.2d 496 (9th Cir.1976);

"The processing of even frivolous claims may have therapeutic values of which those who are not part of the plant environment may be quite unaware." ... It is the arbitration clause, not the substantive contract clause in controversy, which governs whether a dispute must be submitted to arbitration. Arbitration is to be ordered "unless it may be said with positive assurance that the arbitration clause is not susceptible of an interpretation that covers the asserted dispute."

Id. at 499 (citations omitted, emphasis original).

Thus, notwithstanding the lack of any genuine issue of fact as...