**UN PUBLISHED**  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 12**  **- 1981** 
SHEET METAL WORKERS' INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION, Local 399, AFL

- CIO , Plaintiff

– Appellee ,
v. JAMES L. MCLEMORE, d/b/a Maximum Air Flow , Defendant

– Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Charleston
. C. Weston Houck , Senior District Judge. ( 2:07

- cv - 02912

- CWH )

Submitted : September 9 , 2013 Decided: October 9, 2013

Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and KEENAN , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion
. Christopher W. Johnson, GIGNILLIAT, SAVITZ & BETTIS, L.L.P., Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. Michael T. Anderson, Arlus J. Stephens, MURPHY ANDERSON PLLC, Washington, D. C., for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM : Maximum Air Flow Co. appeals the district court’s order enforcing an interest

- arbitration award and a grievance

arbitration award in favor of Sheet Metal Work ers ’ Association International, Local 399, AFL

- CIO (“Sheet Metal Workers’”)
. W e affirm. Sheet Metal Workers ’ is an agent and local union that represents sheet metal workers in the collective bargaining process. Maximum Air Flow is a private company locat ed in South Carolina that handles sheet metal ducting for heating and ventilation systems. Sheet Metal Workers ’ and Maximum Air Flow

were parties to several pre - hire agreements prior to the one at issue here. This case arises out of the third pre

- hire agreement (“Agreement”)
. The A greement contained a m andatory dispute resolution process for grievances of either party , requiring the parties to participate in the National Joint Adjustment Board’s (“NJAB”) arbitration procedure. The A gree m ent also contained an interest

- arbitration clause, which established that if
neg otiations for a renewal of the A greement came to a deadlock, the parties were to submit the issue to the NJAB for a binding decision on the matter. In May 2006, Sheet Metal Wo rkers ’ notified Maximum Air Fl ow that it wanted to renew the Agreement. After t he parties were unable to reach a new agreement, Sheet Metal Workers ’ submitted3 the unresolved negotiations to the NJAB. The NJAB ultimately ordered the parties to execute an ag reement , the interest

arbitration award, which was to be negotiated by the area contractor group and Sheet Metal Workers ’ . Maximum Air Flow refused to comply with the interest

arbitration agreement, prompting Sheet Metal Workers ’ to file a grievance with the NJAB . The NJAB thereafter issued a grievance

arbitration award in favor of Sheet Metal Workers ’ , awarding $341,915.00 in damages and an additional $47,589.00 to be paid to the Local 399 Joint Apprenticeship and Training Committee. Sheet Metal Workers ’ brought the underlying action pursuant to § 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act (“LMRA”) , 29 U.S.C. § 185, seeking judicial confirmation and enforcement of the two arbitration award s , plus costs and attorney’s fees. Maximum Air Flow responded by mov ing to vacate both awards. Sheet Metal Workers’ contend ed that the statute of limitations precluded Maximum Air Flow from vacating the awards
. The district court, after a hearing, agreed with Sheet Metal Workers’ that the statute of limitations barred Max imum Air Flow’s challenge. Sheet Metal Workers' Int'l Ass'n, Local 399, AFL

- CIO v. Maximum Air Flow Co. , 877 F. Supp. 2d 392 (D.S.C. 2012)
. Specifically , the district court held the dispute was a labor management dispute and thus the LMRA provided jurisdic ti on; h owever, the LMRA does not provide a statute of4 limitations period for moving to vacate an arbitration award. See, e.g. , Int'l Longshoremen's Ass'n, AFL

- CIO v. Cataneo Inc. , 990 F.2d 794, 799 (4th Cir. 1993)
. “ To fill this void, courts must look to the most analogous state statute. ” Id. The district
court found South Carolina’s nin ety

- day statute of limitations, S.C. Code Ann. § 15

- 48

- 130 (b), which applies to motions to vacate an arbitration award , to be the most analogous state
statute . See Sheet Me tal Workers' Int'l Ass'n , 877 F. Supp. 2d
at 398
. The district court relied on similar cases from this
court that borrowed the statute of limitations from state arbitration statute s wh en the dispute involved vacating an arbitration award. See id. at 397

– 98 & n.5. The district court found Maximum Air Flow had not challenge d either arbit ration award within the appropriate ninety

- day period, and thus the statute of limitations barred vacating these awards
. See id. at 398. Maximum Air Flow now appeals, arguing the district court erred in applying South Carolina’s ninety

- day statute of limitations because the statute excludes direct application to collective bargaining disputes. The issue of the applicable statute of limitations is a legal matter, which we revie w de

novo. See McCullough v. Branch Banking & Trust Co. , 35 F.3d 127, 129 (4th Cir. 1994)
.5 Having reviewed the parties’ submissions, the district court’s opinion, and the applicable law, we affirm substantially on the reasoning of the district court’s ord er. Sheet Metal Workers' Int'l Ass'n , 877 F. Supp. 2d 392. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before us and oral argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED