In International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, Local Union No. 289 v. Verizon South, Inc., the Union has filed suit in federal court (Middle District of North Carolina) to compel the company to engage in arbitration regarding the termination of an employee. On behalf of the Union, Patterson Harkavy has filed this response brief and this reply brief. Mike Okun and Narendra Ghosh are representing the Union.
This is a summary of the Union’s argument: Because national labor policy strongly favors arbitration as the means for resolving labor disputes, courts must apply a presumption of arbitrability to collective bargaining agreements that contain arbitration provisions, and direct the parties to arbitrate unless the parties have expressly agreed not to arbitrate a particular matter. Any doubt or ambiguity regarding arbitrability is to be resolved in favor of arbitration.
Here, the parties’ collective bargaining agreement and separate settlement agreement for grievant Brian Pollard require arbitration of the grievance regarding Pollard’s termination because Pollard was not a “new employee” when he was rehired in 2010. Moreover, to the extent the settlement agreement is ambiguous about permitting Pollard’s grievance to be arbitrated, that ambiguity must be construed in favor of arbitration. Therefore, defendant’s motion to dismiss should be denied, and plaintiff’s motion to compel arbitration – filed this same day – should be granted.