816 F.2d 671
Unpublished Disposition
DISTRICT 28, UMWA; Local 9967, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
LOWLANDS COAL CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 86-3610.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Argued Feb. 3, 1987.
Decided April 6, 1987.
James Parker Jones (Penn, Stuart, Eskridge & Jones, on brief), for appellant.
Brad Rayson, United Mine Workers of America, for appellees.
Before HALL and SPROUSE, Circuit Judges, and HAYNSWORTH, Senior Circuit Judge.
PER CURIAM:
Lowlands Coal Corporation appeals from the district court's entry of summary judgment in favor of District 28 and Local 9967 of the United Mine Workers of America in the Union's action to vacate and remand an arbitration decision. We affirm.
The Union and Lowlands processed through arbitration a Union member's grievance that claimed:
The Company has laid the grievant off and not recalled him in accordance with Article XVII of the Contract. They have called back an employee junior to the grievant for a job that the grievant has listed on his panel and has the ability to perform. Therefore, the grievant is asking to be put back to work and paid for all lost time due to this.
Although Lowlands had not raised an issue of timeliness either during the grievance steps or at the arbitration proceeding, the arbitrator ruled in its favor solely on the basis that the grievance had not been timely filed. He did not consider the merits of the issues that the parties submitted. The district court, in a thorough and well-reasoned opinion, granted the Union's motion for summary judgment on the ground that the arbitrator decided the case on an issue not submitted by the parties.
In International Chemical Workers Union, Local No. 566 v. Mobay Chemical Corp., 755 F.2d 1107 (4th Cir.1985), this Court reaffirmed that in arbitration proceedings "[t]he parties, not the arbitrator, must define the issues. The submission is 'the source and limit' of the arbitrator's power." Id. at 1110 (quoting Textile Workers Union v. American Thread Co., 291 F.2d 894, 898 (4th Cir.1961)). Lowlands concedes that neither party presented the timeliness issue to the arbitrator, although their collective bargaining agreement expressly required the submission of any issue to be decided. The district court therefore correctly held that the arbitrator lacked jurisdiction to address the question whether the grievance had been timely filed.
The district court's judgment is affirmed on the reasoning expressed by it in its well-crafted opinion. District 28, United Mine Workers of America v. Lowlands Coal Corp., No. 85-0203 (W.D.Va. Aug. 13, 1986).
AFFIRMED.