are for the arbitrator to decide.”); Troy Chem. Corp. v. Teamsters Union Local No. 408, 37 F.3d 123, 127-28 (3d Cir.1994) ("Once the court decided that the discharges were subject to arbitration, it should have held that the dispute was arbitrable and that matters relating to compliance with the grievance procedure or a waiver were matters for the arbitrator.”); Stroehmann Bros. Co., 625 F.2d at 1093 ("[T]he significance of a default in literal compliance with a contractual procedural requirement calls for a determination of the intention of the parties to the contract. Such a determination ..., under the governing case law, [is a matter] for the arbitrator.”); Controlled Sanitation Corp. v. District 128, Int’l Ass’n of Machinists & Aerospace Workers, 524 F.2d 1324, 1331 (3d Cir.1975) (<HOLDING>). 5 . AT & T Techs., Inc. v. Communications
holding that because the parties agreed to arbitrate the particular issue any doubt about who should decide the consolidation issue was resolved in favor of the arbitrator holding that agreement to arbitrate any dispute arising out of contract authorized arbitrator to decide postjudgment interest issues holding that because the parties agreed to arbitrate and both placed the issue before the arbitrator the issue of consolidation was for the arbitrator holding that while the determination of the scope of an arbitration agreement is for the court the enforcement of pleading requirements before the arbitrator is a procedural matter for the arbitrator holding that companys contention that union repudiated the agreement to arbitrate a particular dispute was a matter for the arbitrator and not the court to decide