Appellant, The Independent Soap Workers of Sacramento, California (hereinafter “Union”) is a labor organization which, under a collective bargaining contract, represents certain employees of appellee, The Procter & Gamble Manufacturing Company (hereinafter “Company”), a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Ohio and authorized to do business in the State of California.

The Union appeals from an order of the district court denying its application filed under Section 301 of the Labor-Management Relations Act of 1947 ( 29 U.S.C. § 185 ) to compel the Company to submit to arbitration a labor dispute involving one Norman Raiser (a member of the Union) in accordance with and pursuant to the collective bargaining contract.

No question is raised on this appeal as to the j urisdiction of the district court or of this Court.

The essential facts of this case are not in dispute and may be summarized as follows:

Article XV of the collective bargaining agreement, in pertinent part, provides as follows:

The grievance was processed through the first three steps of the grievance procedure without settlement of the grievance. The Union demanded arbitration. The Company declined to submit the dispute to arbitration, declined to enter into a joint stipulation for that purpose, and declined to appoint an arbitrator. The Union appointed its president as its arbitrator and offered a proposed stipulation of the grievance for arbitration.

The Company takes the position that the grievance does not involve “the interpretation or application of the provisions” of the collective bargaining agreement and that it can exercise its discretion and refuse to arbitrate by declining to enter into a joint stipulation.

In its memorandum and order denying the Union’s petition to compel the Company to arbitrate, the district court held that but two issues were presented to it for determination. These issues are: (1) Does the action taken by the Company against Raiser involve a problem or interpretation or application of the agreement; and (2) Under the arbitration provisions of the agreement, can the Company be compelled to arbitrate?

Since the district court was of the view that the last question had to be answered in the negative, the court did not reach the first question.

The memorandum and order of the district court makes it crystal clear that the Union’s petition to compel arbitration was not denied on the ground that the Raiser grievance did not involve the interpretation or application of the provisions of the bargaining contract.

The refusal of the district court to order arbitration is based entirely on the provisions contained in Step 4 of the arbitration clause that the parties “will stipulate the grievance jointly in writing and the Board will act only on the stipulation and will not add to nor take away from the terms of this Agreement in making this decision.” In the course of its memorandum the district court stated:

The end result of the holding of the district court is that under the provisions of Step 4 of Article XV(b) of the contract, a grievance (as defined in Article XV(a)) “involving the interpretation or application of the provisions” of the agreement is not arbitrable unless the parties jointly stipulate the grievance in writing. In other words, the arbitration may be barred by the unilateral action of either party by refusing to .stipulate.

In the view of the district court, such intention is made clear by bargaining history and the use of the word “will” in the second paragraph of Step 4 following the use of the word “shall” in the first paragraph, considered in the light of bargaining history.

The parties do not dispute the rule that words in the collective bargaining agreement are to be interpreted in the background and light of bargaining history. Pacific Northwest Bell Telephone Company v. Communications Workers of America, 310 F.2d 244 (9th Cir.).

In the context in which used, we believe that no significance can be attached to the fact that the word “shall” appears in the first paragraph of Step 4 and the word “will” in the second paragraph. To us, the words, in context, are synonymous and connote words of command.

We have carefully reviewed all of the bargaining history in the record. We are aware that the arbitration clause contained in the 1953 collective bargaining contract between the parties is in the same form as the contract under review; that dissatisfaction therewith was expressed by Union representatives in discussions of grievances with Company officials in 1957 at a time after the expiration of the 1953 contract and prior to the commencement of negotiations leading up to the contract of August 5, 1960; and that throughout the negotiations culminating in the last mentioned contract the representatives of the Union unsuccessfully endeavored to modify or eliminate the joint stipulation provision. The review of bargaining history, however, reveals that throughout the bargaining negotiations the representatives of the Company repeatedly stated to and assured the Union representatives that so long as the grievance deals with the interpretation or application of the provisions of the contract, the joint stipulation provision was not intended to and would not be used to block arbiti’ation.

If it was the intention of the parties by the language used in Step 4 that either party could unilaterally evade the arbitration provisions by refusing to stipulate the grievance, we are unable to perceive the intention of the parties in restricting arbitration to grievances involving the interpretation or application of the provisions of the agreement.

We note that Article XYII of the contract, which relates to “STRIKES AND LOCKOUTS,” provides:

While we do not hold that the arbitration provision of the contract (Article XV) is the quid pro quo for the no strike provision (Article XVII) [See Drake Bakeries v. Local 50, Am. Bakery & Conf. Workers, etc. (1962), 370 U.S. 254, p. 261 , footnote 7, 82 S.Ct. 1346, p. 1351 , 8 L.Ed.2d 474 ], we believe that the inclusion in the contract of Article XVII is a factor to be considered along with the bargaining history in determining the intention of the parties in respect to the arbitration provision.

In United Steelworkers v. Warrior & Gulf Navigation Co., supra (1960), the full paragraph from which a quotation appears in the memorandum and order of the district court reads as follows:

In light of the record before us and applying the guiding principles laid down by the Supreme Court, we hold that the district court erred in concluding that the parties intended that either party could unilaterally evade the arbitration provisions of the agreement by the simple expedient of refusing to stipulate the grievance. In our view, the intent of the parties derived from the agreement and the bargaining history is that the parties must jointly stipulate the grievance in any case in which either party contends, in good faith, that the grievance involves the interpretation or application of the provisions of the agreement.

The order of the district court denying the Union’s petition to compel arbitration is set aside and the cause is remanded to the district court to determine whether or not the “Raiser” grievance involves the interpretation or application of the provisions of the agreement.