## Facts

- International Paper Co. operated the Bastrop Mill under a collective-bargaining agreement (CBA) with the union representing covered employees.
- The CBA required International Paper to award apprenticeships to the senior qualified employee.
- The CBA also limited the arbitrator’s authority, stating the arbitrator did not have power to modify the CBA’s terms.
- International Paper was a federal contractor subject to Executive Order 11,246, which required covered contractors to maintain affirmative action plans intended to address the effects of prior discrimination.
- International Paper had recently settled a race-discrimination lawsuit brought under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
- The Title VII settlement agreement stated that the CBA’s seniority provisions were not “racially discriminatory in their terms or operation.”
- International Paper had few Black apprentices and asserted that affirmative action measures were needed to increase Black participation in apprenticeship positions.
- In 1973, an apprenticeship became available; a senior White employee and a junior Black employee sought the position, and International Paper selected the junior Black employee.
- The union filed a grievance alleging the selection violated the CBA’s seniority-based apprenticeship requirement.
- International Paper defended its selection by asserting that its affirmative action plan required choosing the Black employee because of the low number of Black apprentices.
- During the grievance process, International Paper refused to provide the union with a copy of the affirmative action plan on which it relied.

## Issues

1. Did International Paper violate the CBA’s apprenticeship-selection provision by awarding an apprenticeship to a junior employee instead of the senior qualified employee?
2. If the CBA’s seniority language is clear and the arbitrator lacks authority to change the agreement, can the employer’s duties as a federal contractor under Executive Order 11,246 (and its asserted affirmative action plan) justify a different outcome?
3. What effect, if any, does the employer’s refusal to provide the union a copy of the affirmative action plan have on the evaluation of the employer’s defense in arbitration?

## Decision

- The dispute was submitted to arbitration under the CBA and decided by Arbitrator Taylor; the award is reported at 69 Lab. Arb. Rep. 857 (1977).
- The arbitration addressed the employer’s asserted conflict between the CBA’s seniority-based apprenticeship clause and the employer’s claim that its affirmative action plan (adopted to meet Executive Order 11,246 obligations) required selection of a junior Black employee.
- Publicly available materials summarizing the award provide the factual background and the parties’ positions, including the employer’s refusal to share the affirmative action plan, but do not disclose the award’s final disposition or any remedy.

## Legal Principles

- An arbitrator’s authority comes from the CBA; when a CBA states the arbitrator may not modify contract terms, the arbitrator’s role is limited to applying and interpreting the agreement the parties made.
- A seniority clause that directs selection of the senior qualified employee generally controls the outcome of a contract-based grievance unless the agreement itself provides an exception or a legally required limitation applies.
- When an employer invokes external compliance duties (such as Executive Order 11,246) as a reason for a decision that departs from CBA language, the dispute may turn on whether the asserted duty is legally mandatory in the specific circumstance and how it fits with the CBA’s text and limits on arbitral authority.
- When a party relies on an affirmative action plan to defend a disputed selection decision, meaningful testing of that defense may depend on the plan’s terms; refusal to share the plan may affect how the defense can be evaluated in the grievance and arbitration process.
- A Title VII settlement statement that a seniority system is not discriminatory “in [its] terms or operation” forms part of the context for arguments about whether a departure from seniority is required or permitted.

## Conclusion

International Paper Co., Southern Kraft Division, Bastrop Mill concerns a grievance arbitration arising from International Paper’s award of an apprenticeship to a junior Black employee over a senior White employee despite a CBA clause requiring selection of the senior qualified employee, with the employer relying on Executive Order 11,246 and an asserted affirmative action plan it declined to share; the reported account frames the dispute around the interaction between clear seniority language, limits on arbitral authority, and the employer’s claimed affirmative action duties, but publicly available summaries do not state the award’s final outcome or remedy.


International Paper Co., Southern Kraft Division, Bastrop Mill, 69 Lab. Arb. Rep. 857 (1977)