The customer associates at Blue Sky Communications had been evaluatedfor decisions on retention and merit awardby a "work flow" system that tracked their task-completion rates. Blue Sky has informed the Union that it intends to implement a "salary evaluation system" based on actual sales made. Upon notice of the Company's plans, the Union filed a grievance challenging the implementation of the new system. The parties engaged in a series of discussions regarding the plan, and the Company made some changes. In the end, however, the parties could not resolve their dispute. The Union requested that the grievance be submitted to arbitration, but the Company refused, asserting that the grievance was not arbitrable under the terms of the collective bargaining agreement (CBA). The arbitration clause, 13.16 of the CBA, defines what topics are arbitrable:

The right to invoke arbitration shall extend only to matters which involve:

(A)The interpretation or application of a specific term or provision of this Agreement, unless excluded by specific provisions of this Agreement.

The Union points to three provisions. First, 1.01, which states, "The Company recognizes the Union as the exclusive bargaining agent for [the] employees of the Company. . . . " Second, 4.01, which requires "mutual responsibility and respect" and a fair application of the CBA "in accord with its intent and meaning and consistent with the Union's status as exclusive bargaining representative." Third, the "no strike" provision, strictly prohibiting the Union from striking under any circumstance. The Company has refused to arbitrate. It argues to its reserved management rights (i.e., that all rights exercised by the employer when it was non-union are retained by it absent an express relinquishment in the CBA) and points out that no specific provision of the CBA deals with employee evaluation. The Union has moved in court to order the matter to arbitration.

How should the court rule in this?