was a matter for the arbitrator to decide). We find the present case functionally indistinguishable from (and controlled by) those cases in which the parties agree that an underlying dispute is arbitrable, but disagree about the effect of laches, waiver, exhaustion of prearbitration steps, limitations periods, or other “procedural” issues. See supra note 4. Bell and its Union agree that disputes over the reorganization of administrative groups may be resolved through arbitration; they simply disagree on the procedures to be followed. The Union has asked that both of these issues — the reorganization dispute and the procedure to be followed — be submitted to an arbitrator, and we hold that this is the proper course for the parties. See John Wiley & Sons, 376 U.S. at 558, 84 S.Ct. 909 (<HOLDING>). The District Court’s judgment will be
holding that a gateway dispute about whether the parties are bound by a given arbitration clause raises a question of arbitrability for a court to decide holding that the information must establish that the court has jurisdiction over both the subject matter and the parties holding that the court must send the parties to arbitration in cases in which arbitrability of the subject matter is unquestioned but a dispute arises over the procedures to be followed holding that because a valid arbitration clause existed the parties had to arbitrate all disputes when the subject matter of the dispute has a reasonable relationship to the subject matter of the contract holding that the state law of preclusion must be followed even when federal jurisdiction over the subject matter of a claim is exclusive