## Facts

- CBS and Radio & Television Broadcast Engineers Union, Local 1212 (IBEW) entered a 3-year collective bargaining agreement in 1965 containing a broad arbitration clause; at the time, Local 1212 represented both recording engineers and broadcast technicians.
- In 1967, after internal dissatisfaction and a representation split, the NLRB certified American Recording & Broadcasting Association (ARBA) as the exclusive bargaining representative for CBS’s recording engineers.
- CBS and ARBA then executed a separate collective bargaining agreement for recording engineers, also containing a broad arbitration clause.
- CBS assigned certain work to broadcast technicians (Local 1212’s unit); ARBA claimed the work belonged to recording engineers and demanded arbitration against CBS under the CBS–ARBA agreement.
- CBS demanded arbitration with Local 1212 under the CBS–Local 1212 agreement and sought a single consolidated arbitration to resolve the overlapping work-assignment dispute.
- Local 1212 agreed to joint arbitration; ARBA refused and moved to dismiss, arguing lack of § 301 jurisdiction and lack of authority to compel consolidated arbitration absent an express contractual provision.

## Issues

1. Whether § 301 of the LMRA provides federal jurisdiction and remedial authority to enforce arbitration obligations where a work-assignment dispute implicates two separate collective bargaining agreements with different unions.
2. Whether a court may order joint, consolidated (tripartite) arbitration among an employer and two unions when neither collective bargaining agreement expressly authorizes multiparty or consolidated arbitration.

## Decision

- The court denied ARBA’s motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim.
- The court held it had jurisdiction under § 301 to enforce the parties’ arbitration commitments and to order a procedure that would make arbitration effective.
- The court ordered CBS, ARBA, and Local 1212 to submit the dispute to a single, consolidated arbitration proceeding.
- The court reasoned that consolidation was appropriate to avoid duplicative proceedings and the risk of conflicting awards that could impose inconsistent work-assignment obligations on CBS.

## Legal Principles

- Section 301 LMRA authorizes federal courts to enforce collective bargaining agreements, including agreements to arbitrate, and to grant relief necessary to make arbitration an effective dispute-resolution mechanism.
- Where separate collective bargaining agreements contain broad arbitration clauses and the disputes concern the same underlying work assignment, a court may compel consolidated, tripartite arbitration to prevent conflicting arbitral awards.
- Consolidation may be treated as a procedural device consistent with enforcing existing arbitration promises, rather than an impermissible rewriting of substantive contractual rights.
- In deciding whether to compel joint arbitration, courts may consider efficiency, duplication, risk of inconsistent obligations, and whether each affected party will have a fair opportunity to present its position.

## Conclusion

The court held that § 301 empowered it to require consolidated tripartite arbitration of an overlapping work-assignment dispute under two broad arbitration clauses, ordering a single proceeding to avoid conflicting awards and to effectuate the parties’ contractual commitment to arbitrate.


Columbia Broad. Sys., Inc. v. Am. Recording & Broad. Ass’n, 293 F. Supp. 1400 (S.D.N.Y. 1968)