For its part, the OCA argues that the new equipment clause is not applicable because paperback equipment 1) is not “new” since it “has been used for excavations since at least 1990 and has been used in heavy industry in Ohio since at least 2011,”2) is outside the union`s jurisdiction because it differs from the other types of machinery listed in the agreement. and 3) no “employer,” as defined in the agreement, uses the equipment. The OCA therefore refused to act as mediator, and Local 18 moved to force arbitration. The Landgericht imposed an arbitration procedure and justified the fact that an arbitrator must decide whether the dispute meets the new developments, the competence requirements and the use of the employers of the re-equipment clause. The OCA has appealed. The International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 18 (“Local 18”), has filed a lawsuit to compel the Ohio Contractors Association (“OCA”) to settle a class dispute under a collective agreement. Referring to the opinion of this court of Local 18 International Union of Operating Engineers v. Ohio Contractors Association, 644 F. App`x 388 (6th Cir.
2016) (“Hydro-Excavator”) – a case involving the same parties and the same contractual clauses – the District Court gave the summary motion of 18 instead of an arbitration procedure. The OCA has appealed, and we affirm. The other arguments of the OCA – that 1) the union of an appeal procedure contained in the general arbitration clause, 2) the contract prohibits an arbitrator from including a new classification rate in the agreement and 3) specific contractual provisions exceed general provisions – were addressed and rejected by Hydro-Excavator, 644 F. App`x under 396-97. The collective agreement. Local 18 represents business engineers – workers who handle machinery for road and building construction in Ohio and Northern Kentucky. The OCA is a trade group for construction companies. The parties have entered into a collective agreement (“agreement”) that places certain equipment within the exclusive jurisdiction of the union; Companies wishing to use such equipment must recruit union members. The contract also includes a schedule that links the rate of pay for members to the type of equipment operated. We apply the same reasoning here, because the agreement involves disputes between the association and the “Union” and the “meaning, intent or application” of the novelty, competence and use of the new equipment clause at the bar.
As with Hydro-Excavator, an arbitrator, not the court, must decide whether the disappointment of broccoli equipment is within the scope of the new equipment clause. The fight. Local 18 states that employers are using new remote excavation machines (“brocades”) for highway construction projects. The union would have an arbitrator who would assign the machine a salary classification and thus limit its use to union members. On the other hand, the OCA aims to avoid the classification of wages and thus maintain the possibility of employing non-union workers. The dispute involves the arbitration of the re-equipment agreement.