Brotherhood of Teamsters and Auto Truck Drivers Local 70 v. Interstate Distributor Company

This appeal presents a not so novel question: When one of the parties to a collective bargaining agreement seeks to compel arbitration of a grievance pursuant to an arbitration clause contained in the agreement, and the other party claims that the agreement expired or was terminated before the conduct giving rise to the grievance occurred, who decides whether the agreement actually expired or was terminated — the court or an arbitrator?

I. Facts

The Brotherhood of Teamsters and Auto Truck Drivers Local No. 70 and the Interstate Distributor Company entered into a collective bargaining agreement that was effective on April 1, 1982. The agreement contained a broad arbitration clause: to wit, “[a]ny grievance or controversy affecting the mutual relations of the Employer and the Union” was to be resolved by an arbitrator. The contract provided that ar-bitral decisions “shall be final and binding.”

The collective bargaining agreement also contained a standard termination clause. That provision read:

On January 23, 1985, Interstate wrote the Teamsters stating that it desired “to change and/or modify the agreement between the parties.” Approximately a week later, the union replied,…