Case ID: f-appx_141/html/0164-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

EASTERN ASSOCIATED COAL CORPORATION; Charles Coal Company, joint venturers on behalf of Colony Bay Company, Plaintiffs—Appellants, v. DISTRICT 17, UNITED MINE WORKERS OF AMERICA; Local Union No. 9177, United Mine Workers of America, Defendants—Appellees.
    No. 04-2503.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: July 25, 2005.
    Decided: Aug. 16, 2005.
    Albert F. Sebok, Brian J. Moore, Jackson Kelly, PLLC, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellants. Deborah Stern, Associate General Counsel, Fairfax, Virginia; Charles F. Donnelly, Donnelly & Carbone, P.L.L.C., Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellees.
    Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    
      Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
   PER CURIAM:

Eastern Associated Coal Corporation and Charles Coal Company, on behalf of Colony Bay Company (hereinafter collectively “Company”), filed suit in the district court against District 17, United Mine Workers of America, and Local Union No. 9177, United Mine Workers of America (hereinafter collectively “Union”), seeking to vacate an arbitration award issued in favor of the Union. The district court granted summary judgment for the Union. We do not find that the district court erred by concluding that the arbitrator’s decision was based upon the collective bargaining agreement. See United Paperworkers Int’l Union v. Misco, Inc., 484 U.S. 29, 38, 108 S.Ct. 364, 98 L.Ed.2d 286 (1987) (stating review standard); Island Creek Coal Co. v. Dist. 28, United Mine Workers of Am., 29 F.3d 126, 129 (4th Cir.1994) (same). Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See E. Assoc. Coal Corp. v. Dist. 17, United Mine Workers of Am., No. CA-03-2430 (S.D.W.Va. Nov. 5, 2004). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED