At&T Technologies, Inc. v. Communications Workers

Justice White delivered the opinion of the Court.

The issue presented in this case is whether a court asked to order arbitration of a grievance filed under a collective-bargaining agreement must first determine that the parties intended to arbitrate the dispute, or whether that determination is properly left to the arbitrator.

HH AT&T Technologies, Inc. (AT&T or the Company), and the Communications Workers of America (the Union) are parties to a collective-bargaining agreement which covers telephone equipment installation workers. Article 8 of this agreement [*645] establishes that “differences arising with respect to the interpretation of this contract or the performance of any obligation hereunder” must be referred to a mutually agreeable arbitrator upon the written demand of either party. This Article expressly does not cover disputes “excluded from arbitration by other provisions of this contract.”[1] Article 9 provides that, “subject to the limitations contained in the provisions of this contract, but otherwise not subject to the provisions of the arbitration clause,” AT&T is free to exercise certain management functions, including the hiring and placement of employees and the termination of employment.[2] “When lack of work necessitates Layoff,” Article 20 prescribes the order in which employees are to be laid off.[3]