Opinion

Teamsters Local Union No. 783 v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc.

  • 626 F.3d 256
  • 50 Employee Benefits Cas. (BNA) 1132
  • 189 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2609
  • 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 22661
  • 2010 WL 4323437
Court
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Filed
Nov 1, 2010
Status
Published
Author
Moore
On the bench
Norris, Moore, McKeague
Cited by
10 cases

holding dispute over individual employee’s pension benefits eligibility not arbitrable, despite broad arbitration clause under AT & T, id. at 261, because the Pension Plan clearly provides a specific mechanism for resolving all grievances related to pension rights, whereby an individual can make a claim for pension benefits to the plan director, id. at 262

How later courts described this case

  • holding dispute over individual employee’s pension benefits eligibility not arbitrable, despite broad arbitration clause under AT & T, id. at 261, because the Pension Plan clearly provides a specific mechanism for resolving all grievances related to pension rights, whereby an individual can make a claim for pension benefits to the plan director, id. at 262
  • “A statement that a grievance is not arbitrable, which simultaneously requests additional information, does not amount to an unequivocal position that the employer will not arbitrate.”
  • CBA expressly excluded from arbitration disputes over determination of rights under pension plan
  • CBA covering all grievances “arising under or relating to the interpretation of” the CBA

Written by the judges who cited it.

The opinion

KAREN NELSON MOORE, Circuit Judge,

concurring in part and dissenting in part.

I join Part II.A. of the majority opinion, concluding that the statute of limitations does not bar Local 783’s claim because Anheuser-Busch did not unequivocably refuse to arbitrate more than six months before Local 783 filed the complaint. I dissent from Part II.B. of the majority opinion regarding the arbitrability of the grievance. Although the majority properly holds that the arbitration clause is “broadly written” and that “arbitration should be denied in this case only if the parties have expressly excluded the grievance from arbitration,” the majority incorrectly fails to require arbitration of the grievance concerning the implications of the collective bargaining agreement’s provision in Section 11(b) regarding seniority rights. The interrelationship between CBA § 11(b) on seniority rights and the Pension Plan is a matter that comes within the scope of the broad arbitration clause, irrespective of the facts that CBA § 24 references the Pension Plan and that the Pension Plan has its own dispute-resolution mechanism. Whether there is a relationship between CBA § 11(b) and the pension claim at issue here and what the exact nature of that relationship may be are quintessentially issues for the arbitrator to decide. For this reason, I respectfully dissent from Part II.B. of the majority’s opinion.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.