wi 413 F.3d 786, 788 (8th Cir.2005) (“This court ... follows the Second Circuit’s approach.”). Three other circuits, the Third, Seventh, and Ninth, have adopted the “scope” test. They hold that unless the parties indicate otherwise, disputes over a side agreement are arbitrable if the subject matter of the side agreement is within the scope of the CBA’s arbitration clause. See, e.g., L.O. Koven & Bro., Inc. v. Local Union No. 5767, United Steelworkers, 381 F.2d 196, 204-05 (3d Cir.1967) (concluding that a dispute over a side agreement that was silent as to arbitrability was governed by the CBA’s arbitration clause because the underlying subject was one “ordinarily a matter for consideration by an arbitrator” under the CBA); Niro v. Feam Int’l, Inc., 827 F.2d 173, 175 (7th Cir.1987) (<HOLDING>); Dutra Group, 279 F.3d at 1080 (holding that
holding that unfair competition claims are arbitrable holding that a settlement agreement is an arbitrable subject when the underlying dispute is arbitrable holding that the nonarbitrable fraud claims had to be stayed pending resolution of the arbitrable issue because the fraud claims depended upon the arbitrable issues holding that the plain language of the parties contract which limited the cases eligible for submission to arbitration rendered the underlying dispute not arbitrable holding that claims under the securities act of 1933 are arbitrable