AT&T Technologies, Inc. v. Communications Workers

Supreme Court of the United States · 1986 · Labor Law

475 U.S. 643 (1986)

Updated August 1, 2026

Labor Lawarbitrabilitylabor arbitrationcollective-bargaining agreementjudicial determinationpresumption of arbitrabilitySteelworkers Trilogymanagement functions clause

Facts

AT&T and the Union were parties to a collective-bargaining agreement whose arbitration clause covered differences concerning interpretation of the contract or performance of obligations under it, except disputes excluded elsewhere in the contract. Article 9 reserved certain management functions to AT&T, subject to contract limitations, while Article 20 provided the order of layoffs when lack of work necessitates layoff. After the Union filed a grievance alleging there was no lack of work justifying the layoff of 79 Chicago installers, AT&T laid them off and transferred about the same number of installers from Indiana and Wisconsin into Chicago. AT&T refused arbitration, contending that its decision to lay off workers when it determines a lack of work exists was not arbitrable under Article 9.

Issue

When a party seeks to compel arbitration under a collective-bargaining agreement, must a court first decide whether the parties agreed to arbitrate the particular grievance, or may that threshold arbitrability question be left to the arbitrator? More specifically, did the Seventh Circuit err by ordering arbitration of the arbitrability issue itself?

Rule

Arbitration is a matter of contract, and a party cannot be required to arbitrate a dispute it did not agree to submit. Therefore, unless the parties clearly and unmistakably provide otherwise, the question of arbitrability—whether the collective-bargaining agreement creates a duty to arbitrate the particular grievance—is for judicial determination, not the arbitrator. In deciding arbitrability, a court may not rule on the merits of the underlying grievance, and where the contract contains a broad arbitration clause there is a presumption of arbitrability: arbitration should be denied only if the court can say with positive assurance that the clause is not susceptible to an interpretation covering the dispute, with doubts resolved in favor of coverage.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Riverton Transit Works and Local 188 are parties to a collective-bargaining agreement in Cleveland. The agreement broadly requires arbitration of disputes concerning interpretation of the contract, but says nothing about who decides whether a particular grievance is arbitrable. After the company refuses to arbitrate a grievance over reassignment of duties, the union files suit to compel arbitration.

Who should decide in the first instance whether the grievance falls within the arbitration clause?

Explanation. Arbitration is a matter of contract, so a party cannot be forced to arbitrate a dispute it did not agree to submit. The threshold question whether the agreement creates a duty to arbitrate the particular grievance is for the court unless the parties clearly and unmistakably assigned that issue to the arbitrator. A broad clause does not itself transfer the arbitrability decision to the arbitrator. (Derived from AT&T Technologies, Inc. v. Communications Workers (1986).)