Yokohama Tire Corp.

On July 24, 1997, a collective-bargaining agreement (CBA) between the Yokohama Tire Corporation (Yokohama) (defendant) and Local Union No. 1023 (union) (plaintiff) became effective. The CBA governed the terms of employment at a Yokohama plant in Virginia and provided that all disputes over interpretation of the CBA would be decided by arbitrators. For an arbitrator to have the authority to resolve a dispute, the CBA required grievances to be submitted in accordance with the CBA’s procedures. Under those procedures, an employee could submit a complaint in writing as a grievance. But the procedures also required any grievance to be submitted within five working days of when the “employee reasonably should have had knowledge of the occurrence or event.” A separate letter, which was incorporated into the CBA, provided that the time limit for filing a grievance could be extended by mutual agreement of the parties. On July 30, 2001, Yokohama terminated an employee who was on a leave of absence due to workplace injuries. Yokohama terminated the employee because it had no jobs the employee could perform with the employee’s injuries. On August 30, 2001, the union filed a grievance under the CBA. The union claimed that the termination was not for just cause and that Yokohama should have continued the leave of absence instead of terminating the employee. The union also argued that the grievance was not untimely because it was a continuing violation. Yokohama responded that the grievance should be dismissed because it was not filed within the five-day time limit.