Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 315223.cor.pdf

Citation: Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 315223.cor.pdf
Jurisdiction: Washington (state)
Source verification: official_capture_completeness_unverified
Original Source: https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/315223.cor.pdf ↗

Related Parts of This Source

Full Text

1,508 chars

~~( 1) Although it is the court's duty to determine whether the parties have
agreed to arbitrate a particular dispute, the court cannot decide the merits of
the controversy, but may determine only whether the grievant has made a
claim which on its face is governed by the contract. (2) An order to
arbitrate should not be denied unless it may be said with positive assurance
the arbitration clause is not susceptible of an interpretation that covers the
asserted dispute. Doubts should be resolved in favor of coverage. (3)
There is a strong presumption in favor of arbitrability; all questions upon
which the parties disagree are presumed to be within the arbitration
provisions unless negated expressly or by clear implication."

Gen. Teamsters Local No. 321 v. Whatcom County, 38 Wn. App. 715, 717,687 P.2d

1154 (1984) (quoting Council ofCounty & City Emps. v. Spokane County, 32 Wn. App.

422,424-25,647 P.2d 1058 (1982». While favoring arbitration, the cases respect any

clear agreement by a union and an employer that certain types of grievances are not

arbitrable.

In the case of these parties, the CBA makes most grievances arbitrable, defining

"grievance" to mean "an alleged violation of a specific term of this Agreement or a

dispute regarding an interpretation of the Agreement." CP at 109. But some grievances

are explicitly excluded from step four of the grievance process, providing for arbitration.

Article VII, section 3(B) of the CBA, entitled "Limitations on Grievances," provides: