United States Third Circuit

In an action by a union against a drugstore chain (Rite Aid), claiming that Rite Aid denied entry when union representatives attempted to enter six of the newly acquired stores, district court's judgment that the union's grievances were not arbitrable is affirmed where: 1) the district court correctly concluded that the recognition clause is not susceptible of an interpretation which would yield such a right; 2) the union's store-access grievance does not require interpretation of section 5.1, the observation clause, and arbitration is not properly invoked by reliance on this provision; 3) the union's store access grievance does not fall within the scope of the CBA's arbitration clause because it does not require the interpretation of any of the CBA's provisions; and 4) the union's argument that the district court impermissibly considered the merits of its grievance in making its arbitrability determination is rejected as decisions of the Supreme Court and Courts of Appeals have made clear that where the merits and arbitrability questions are inextricably intertwined, a court's arbitrability decision may, of necessity, touch incidentally on the merits.

Appellate Information

• Argued 11/10/2009
• Decided 02/16/2010
• Published 02/16/2010

Judges

• Before AMBRO, GARTH, and ROTH, Circuit Judges.

Court

• United States Third Circuit

Counsel

• For Appellant:
  
• Nancy B.G. Lassen, Laurence M. Goodman, [Argued], Philadelphia, PA, for Appellant.


• For Appellees:
  
• Andrew W. Allison, [Argued], Jonathan B. Sprague, Darren M. Creasy, Philadelphia, PA, for Appellee.