## Facts

- AT&T Technologies, Inc. and the Communications Workers of America (CWA) were parties to a collective-bargaining agreement covering telephone equipment installation workers.
- The agreement included a broad arbitration clause for disputes about contract interpretation or performance.
- A management-rights clause reserved certain employer functions, including hiring, placement, and termination, and stated that (subject to limitations) these functions were not subject to arbitration.
- A layoff provision governed the order of layoffs “[w]hen lack of work necessitates Layoff.”
- AT&T laid off 79 installers at its Chicago facility.
- The union filed a grievance alleging there was no “lack of work,” so the layoffs violated the layoff provision, and sought arbitration.
- AT&T refused to arbitrate, asserting layoffs were a management function excluded from arbitration.

## Issues

1. Whether the threshold question of arbitrability—whether the layoff grievance falls within the arbitration clause despite the management-rights reservation—must be decided by a court or may be decided by an arbitrator.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court unanimously vacated the judgment compelling arbitration and remanded.
- The Court held that arbitrability is for judicial determination unless the parties clearly and unmistakably provide otherwise.
- The lower courts erred by compelling arbitration based on the view that the union’s contract interpretation was “arguable,” effectively leaving arbitrability to the arbitrator.
- On remand, the lower courts were to interpret the agreement and decide whether the grievance was covered by the arbitration clause, applying the presumption of arbitrability.

## Legal Principles

- Arbitration is a matter of contract; a party cannot be required to arbitrate a dispute it did not agree to arbitrate.
- The question whether a collective-bargaining agreement creates a duty to arbitrate a particular grievance is presumptively for courts.
- A delegation of arbitrability to the arbitrator requires “clear and unmistakable” evidence of such an agreement.
- In labor agreements with broad arbitration clauses, courts apply a presumption of arbitrability and should order arbitration unless it is clear the clause cannot cover the dispute.
- Courts decide the scope of the arbitration obligation; if the dispute is arbitrable, arbitrators decide the merits of the grievance and competing contract interpretations.

## Conclusion

The Court held that courts must decide whether the parties agreed to arbitrate a particular labor grievance, and that the presumption favoring arbitration guides courts in construing coverage but does not shift the gateway arbitrability decision to arbitrators absent clear contractual delegation.


AT&T Techs., Inc. v. Commc’ns Workers of Am., 475 U.S. 643 (1986)