### *T he HONORABLE LEONARD I. GARTH, United States Circui t

Judge for the Third Circuit, sitting by designation. The Honorab le Russell G. Clark, United States District Judge 1 

### for the Western District of Missouri. ___________ No. 95-1519

___________ International Brotherhood of * Teamsters, Chauffeurs, * Warehousemen, and Helpers of * America, Local 245, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Western District of Missouri. Kansas City Piggy Back, * [PUBLISHED] doing business as * Terminal Consolidation * Company, * * Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: December 15, 1995 Filed: July 9, 1996

___________ Before FAGG, GARTH, and WOLLMAN, Circuit Judges. *

___________
PER CURIAM.

Kansas City Piggy Back, doing business as Terminal Consolidatio n Company (Terminal), appeals the distr ict court's adverse grant of summary 1 jud gment to International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs , Warehousemen, and Helpers of America, Local 245 (Union). We affirm.
Terminal operates an office in Springfield, Missouri. Union an d Terminal entered into a collective bargaining agreement for the

### -2-

period from October 15, 1991, through October 14, 1994, covering Union's member s in the Springfield area. The collective bargaining agreemen t included a provision stating that "all discrepancies between the parties" would be submitted to a six-member Labor Relations Committee (Committee), whose decision "will be followed by both parties."
Follow ing the filing of a grievance by Union on July 26, 1993, an d bya member on October 14, 1993, the Committee issued decisions in favor of Union on December 3, 1993, and on February 10, 1994. On June 22, 1994, Union filed a complaint seeking confirmation of the Committee's arbitrati on awards. It is from the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Union that Terminal now appeals.
Although Terminal has raised several issues on appeal, we conclud e that only one merits discussion, namely, Terminal's contention that Union' s action to confirm the Committee's December 3, 19 93, award is barred by the six-mo nth limitation period contained in Section 10(b) of the Nationa l Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 160(b). The di strict court rejected this contention, holding that the Missouri five-year contract-law statute o f limi tations set forth in Mo. Rev. Stat. § 516.120 (1993), applied t o Union's complaint.
We agree with the district court's analysis. Union's complaint for confirmation of the Committee's decisions was filed pursuant to Section 30 1 of the Labo r Management Relations Act of 1947, 29 U.S.C. § 185. I n Intern ational Union, United Auto Workers v. Hoosier Cardinal Corp. , 38 3 U.S. 696 (1966), the Supreme Court held that because no provision o f federal law governs the issue, the timeliness of a Section 301 suit brough t bya union to enforce the provision of a labor agreement is to b e determined by applyin g the appropriate state statute of limitations. Id. at 705-06. The

### -3-

Court left open the q uestion whether Section 301 suits alleging causes of acti on other than breach of contract might be subject to a differen t limitations period. Id. at 705 n.7. Thus, in DelCostello v. Internationa l Brotherhood of Teamsters , 462 U.S. 151 (1983), the Court held that the six

month limitations period contained in Section 10(b) of the Labor Managemen t Relations Act governed an employee's suit against his employer and hi s union. Whatever impa ct DelCostello may have on Section 301 actions based upon c auses of action different from the one alleged by Union in th e pres ent case, we hold that an action to enforce an arbitration awar d entere d pursuant to an arbitration clause in a collective bargainin g agreement is governedby the appropriate state statute of limitations, in this case Mo. Rev. Stat. § 516.120 (1993). See Service Employees Int' l Union Lo cal 36 v. City Cleaning Co., Inc. , 982 F.2d 89 (3d Cir. 1992) ; Plumbers' Pension Fund v. Domas Mechanical Contractors, Inc. , 778 F.2d 126 6 (7th Cir. 1985); Derw in v. General Dynamics Corp. , 719 F.2d 484 (1st Cir. 1983); International Union of Elec., Radio and Mach. Workers v. Ingram Mfg
. Co. , 715 F.2d 886 (5th Cir. 1983), cert. denied , 466 U.S. 928 (1984).
With respect to the remainder of Terminal's contentions, we affir m on the basis of the district court's opinion. See 8th Cir. Rule 47B. The judgment is affirmed.
A true copy.

Attest:
CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.