International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers v. Citizens

Telecommunications Co. of California (Labor and Employment Law)

Filed December 5, 2008

Cite as 0616189

Union’s Right to Compel Arbitration for Alleged CBA Violations Upheld

The case arose from the dispute between Citizens Telecommunications Co. (Citizens) and International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO Local 1245 (IBEW) who were both parties to a collective bargaining agreement (CBA), which is in effect from October 2004 through September 2008. Mainly, IBEW sought an order obliging Citizens to arbitrate its claim that Citizens had violated the CBA by reducing employee benefits.

IBEW filed two grievances namely:

1. The first complaint sought relief from Citizens’ decision to increase the medical plan premiums paid by active employees.


2. the second alleged that Citizens “unilaterally made changes to the retiree medical plan” and therefore violated the CBA because those changes would “reduce the overall level of benefit to the retiree plan”

According to Article 24.1 of the CBA under the “Citizens Utilities Medical Plan,” which includes the “Retiree Medical” plan, medical benefits “shall be provided for all eligible employees in accordance with the terms of said plans.”

Further, according to their CBA provision, Citizens may “make changes” to the plan, provided that, inter alia, “the changes do not reduce the overall level of benefits.”

After hearing, the district court granted IBEW’s motion to compel arbitration over the cancellation of certain medical benefits. In response, Citizens filed for an appeal, arguing that IBEW cannot arbitrate its grievance without first obtaining consent from the retirees currently eligible for benefits under the CBA.

During appeal, the appeals court held that the district court properly found subject matter jurisdiction under 29 U.S.C. 185 (a), and the appellate jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. section 1291. (Bushley v. Credit Suisse First Boston, 360 F.3d 1149, 1152 (9th Cir. 2004).

The appeals court therefore held that the union seeking arbitration to determine whether employer had reduced retirement benefits under the applicable collective bargaining agreement provision, did not need to obtain consent from affected retirees.

Further, it held that the union’s lack of standing to sue on behalf of retirees did not deprive union of “associational standing” to sue to compel arbitration on behalf of its current members.

The court of appeals therefore affirmed the decision of the district court.