broad power to the arbitrator to determine all disputes arising between the parties. With no mention of consolidation in the text of the contract, we must turn to the presumptions. BG Group, 572 US at_; 134 S Ct at 1206-1207. In doing so, it is clear that the parties are subject to an arbitration agreement, and there is no suggestion that the underlying claim for overdue compensation falls outside the scope of the agreement. Consequently, the issue of who decides whether to consolidate arbitration claims does not fall within the general purview of a gateway issue, see id., and is instead a procedural or subsidiary issue for the arbitrator to decide. Stolt-Nielsen, 559 US at 685. The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circ ester Fire Ins Co, 489 F3d 580, 587-588 (CA 3, 2007) (<HOLDING>); Shaw’s Supermarkets, Inc v United Food &
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 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 companys contention that union repudiated the agreement to arbitrate a particular dispute was a matter for the arbitrator and not the court to decide holding that when a constitutional right is vested in a party and there is a doubt as to whether that right has been waived the doubt should be resolved in the defendants favor holding that the workers compensation act is to be liberally construed in the employees favor and any doubt in its construction is thus resolved in favor of the employee