SBC Advanced Solutions, Inc. v. Commc'n Workers of Am, Dist. 6, No. 14-3351 (8th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this CaseThe Union represents Company employees, governed by a collective bargaining agreement (CBA), which required that there be tiered job classifications with specific work functions, that the parties arbitrate disputes, and that an arbitrator's disposition be "final." The Company’s Missouri call center was staffed with customer service representatives (CSRs) and service representatives (SRs). A CSR "[p]rimarily receives, screens, tests, analyzes, and dispatches trouble reports; explains and suggests various services and/or products … performs other generally related functions." SRs"[h]andle[] the business transactions in connection with customers' accounts, including telephone and correspondence contacts and collection and order work, etc." The Company chose 20 CSRs for special training to work with a new computer system. They were trained by an SR, used SR training materials, and were subsequently moved to a new work location where they worked alongside SRs and took calls out of the same queue. The CSRs claimed that this was different from the work that they had previously performed. The Union filed a grievance alleging violation of the CBA, which states that: A qualified employee . . . who is temporarily … assigned and does work in a position with a higher established maximum rate of pay” shall receive a higher rate of pay after a specified period. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the arbitrator’s award in favor of the Union.
Court Description: Smith, Author, with Bye, Circuit Judge, and Schiltz, District Judge] Civil case - Arbitration. In a dispute over a provision in the parties' Collective Bargaining Agreement regarding pay differential for a group of workers performing higher-classified work, the district court did not err in confirming the award on the ground the arbitrator's decision drew its essence from the CBA; the arbitrator did not err in retaining jurisdiction where the amount of the awards to the affected employees remained in issue.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.