Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, LABOR—ARBITRATION—N.D.W. Va.: Union granted summary judgment affirming arbitration award that employer breached CBA, (Aug 25, 2026)

By Ronald Miller, J.D.

The arbitrator did not merely apply his own brand of industrial justice to the award.

Finding that an arbitrator did not ignore past arbitration decisions or fail to apply express contract language, a federal district court in West Virginia affirmed an arbitration award in favor of a union and denied an employer’s motion to vacate the award. The court determined that the arbitrator analyzed the agreement and construed its terms in accordance with established arbitral precedent. Thus, the court found that the award drew its essence from the agreement ( Marion County Coal Resources, Inc. v. United Mine Workers of America, International Union , No. 1:25-CV-56 (N.D.W. Va. Aug. 19, 2026)).

Coal mining. On June 11, 2025, the employer, Marion County Coal, filed suit against the union pursuant to Section 301 of the LMRA. On October 31, it filed a motion for summary judgment asking the court to vacate an arbitrator’s award. The union opposed the motion and asked the court to affirm the award.

Since September 2020, the employer operated an underground coal mine. The mine produces coal through the longwall method, which entails shearing coal from a single wall, or panel, of coal. The mining of a longwall panel takes about nine months to complete. Once a panel is complete, all equipment is disassembled, moved, and reassembled at the next panel.

Prior to Marion County Coal’s acquisition of the mine, the mine was operated by Consolidation Coal Company. Consolidation began using the longwall mining system in 1976, assigning related assembly and recovery work consistently to general inside laborers. When Marion took over operations of the mine in 2013, it continued the same practice. Marion also assigned longwall mining system assembly and recovery work to general inside laborers.

Grievance. The action at issue stemmed from a grievance filed by an employee at the mine. The union represents mine employees pursuant to the 2020 National Coal Wage Agreement (NCWA), which sets forth the terms and conditions of employment for union-represented mine employees.

On January 23, 2025, the union filed a grievance on behalf of the employee, alleging that the employer neglected to post job bids for employees assigned to perform longwall recovery and assembly work in violation of the NCWA. The grievance further indicated that the employer had assigned one foreman and two or more general inside laborers to perform the job. As relief, the grievance requested that the employer post three job bids for such recovery and assembly work.

Arbitration award. An arbitration hearing was held on March 27, 2025. The issue presented to the arbitrator was whether the employer had violated the NCWA and, if so, to identify the appropriate remedy for such violation. The arbitrator found that the employer violated the NCWA by failing to post job bids for the assigned longwall recovery and assembly work, as required for new jobs under the agreement. Accordingly, the arbitrator sustained the union’s grievance and required the employer to post job vacancies for three permanent job openings in longwall recovery and assembly.

The employer argued that the arbitrator issued an award that contradicted the express contract language and instead comported with his own sense of fairness and equity. Specifically, it contended that the arbitrator ignored binding arbitral precedent requiring him to deny the union’s grievance. For its part, the union argued that the award should be upheld because it drew its essence from the agreement.

Judicial review. Courts generally afford a presumption of validity to arbitration awards. In reviewing arbitration awards, the court “must determine only whether the arbitrator did his job—not whether he did it well, correctly, or reasonably, but simply whether he did it.” The award must “draw its essence from the collective bargaining agreement.” It cannot “simply reflect the arbitrator’s own notions of industrial justice.”

In reviewing arbitration awards, a court must also evaluate whether the arbitrator considered “any existing common law of the particular plant or industry, for it is an integral part of the contract.”

Here, the court found that the award drew its essence from the agreement. The arbitrator sufficiently considered the issue of whether the employer violated the agreement and issued an award he deemed an appropriate remedy. At a minimum, the arbitrator “arguably” applied the contract and acted within the scope of his authority.

The court rejected the employer’s primary argument that the arbitrator ignored the precedential effect of past Arbitration Review Board (ARB) decisions under the agreement. The arbitrator considered copious ARB decisions submitted by the parties including those issued before and after the expiration of the National Bituminous Coal Wage Agreement of 1978. In doing so, he found appropriate the application of more recent arbitral decisions. Accordingly, the arbitrator was within the scope of his authority to afford greater weight to past arbitral decisions other than ARB Decision No. 19.

Personal notions of fairness. Additionally, the court was not persuaded by the employer’s argument that the arbitrator relied on personal notions of fairness and equity to make his determination. Although the arbitrator referenced factors not expressly addressed by the agreement, such as artificial intelligence, renewable energy sources, and government regulations, his discussion of such factors was not alone grounds to invalidate his award. Thus, the arbitrator did not merely apply his own brand of industrial justice to the award.

The case is No. 1:25-CV-56.

Judge: Kleeh, T.

Attorneys: Michael D. Glass (Ogletree Deakins) for Marion County Coal Resources, Inc. Kevin F. Fagan, United Mine Workers of America, for United Mine Workers of America and International Union and United Mine Workers of America, District 31.

Companies: Marion County Coal Resources, Inc.; United Mine Workers of America, International Union; United Mine Workers of America, District 31

Cases: Labor Arbitration ContractClaims WestVirginiaNews