## Facts

- Granite Rock Company negotiated a new collective-bargaining agreement (CBA) with Teamsters Local 287 after a prior CBA expired and a strike began.
- On July 2, 2004, Granite Rock and the Local reached agreement on a new CBA containing a no-strike clause and an arbitration clause, but they did not reach a separate back-to-work agreement that would immunize union members from strike-related damages.
- The International Brotherhood of Teamsters (IBT) instructed the Local to continue striking until Granite Rock accepted a “hold harmless” provision; Granite Rock refused and asserted that any continued strike violated the new CBA’s no-strike clause.
- Granite Rock sued under LMRA § 301(a) seeking damages for breach of the no-strike clause and to compel arbitration; it also added state-law-style tortious interference claims alleging IBT induced the Local to continue an unlawful strike.
- The unions argued the CBA was not validly ratified on July 2, making the no-strike clause nonbinding during the disputed strike; Granite Rock asserted ratification occurred July 2.
- The district court dismissed the tortious interference claims against IBT, tried the ratification-date dispute to a jury (which found ratification on July 2), and then ordered arbitration on the contract claims; the Ninth Circuit held the ratification-date dispute should have been decided by an arbitrator.

## Issues

1. Whether a court or an arbitrator decides a disputed CBA formation/ratification date when that determination controls whether the parties agreed to arbitrate the dispute.
2. Whether LMRA § 301(a) authorizes a cause of action against a non-signatory international union for tortious interference with a CBA.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court held that courts, not arbitrators, decide disputes over whether and when an arbitration contract (here, the CBA containing an arbitration clause) was formed when the answer determines arbitrability.
- The Court reversed the Ninth Circuit on the formation/ratification question, approving judicial resolution of the ratification-date dispute before compelling arbitration.
- The Court held that LMRA § 301(a) provides a federal cause of action for breach of labor contracts, not a free-standing tort claim for tortious interference against a non-signatory international union.
- The Court affirmed dismissal of the tortious interference theory against IBT.
- The judgment was 7–2 (Justice Thomas for the Court; Justice Sotomayor concurred in part and dissented in part, joined in part by Justice Stevens).

## Legal Principles

- Arbitration is based on consent; a party cannot be compelled to arbitrate disputes absent agreement.
- The presumption favoring arbitration applies only after a court determines that a valid, enforceable arbitration agreement exists and covers the dispute.
- Disputes about contract formation, including whether and when a CBA was formed, are “gateway” questions for courts when they determine whether arbitration is available.
- LMRA § 301(a) authorizes federal suits for “violation of contracts” and permits federal common-law rules to enforce CBAs, but it does not create general tort remedies.
- A tortious-interference claim against a non-signatory union is not cognizable under § 301(a) absent a contractual obligation enforceable under that section.

## Conclusion

The Court required judicial determination of the CBA’s formation date when that fact controls arbitrability, and it limited LMRA § 301(a) to contract-based claims, rejecting tortious-interference liability against a non-signatory international union on the pleaded theory.


Granite Rock Co. v. Int’l Bhd. of Teamsters, 561 U.S. 287 (2010)