3. Would the issue of whether the case was arbitrable be considered procedural or substantive?

Why? Issue Was the grievance filed by Clinton Rowlett on May 5, 1996 processed in a timely manner in accordance with Section II of the labor agreement?

Background OnMay 2, 1996, drivers of Delta Timberlands Corporation (the Company) were informed that they were being laid off because the paper mill located in Pine Bluff, Arkansas, was on strike.

On the following Monday, May 5, the vice president of the Paperworkers Union, Local No. 544, filed a Grievance on behalf of the drivers. His statement of the grievance was as follows:

We, the drivers, feel that we are being discriminated against because we were laid off on May 2, 1996. The reason given by the supervisor was that the mill was blocked; however, on May 2, 1996, the independent contractors hauled 196 truckloads to the mill.

A Step 2 meeting was held on May 30, and the Company’s answer was provided on June 12.

The final sentence of the letter essentially gives the Company’s position on the grievance.

The Company has not violated the contract and retains the right, power, and authority to schedule the sourcing and receipts of fiber into converting facilities.

The Union made a verbal appeal of the Grievance to Step 3 on July 9; however, no meeting was held and no written request for a grievance meeting was made until November 11. The Company responded to the Union’s request for a meeting with a letter dated November 15, in which Mr. Jack Hopeful stated:

The request for a third step meeting was untimely.

The grievance was referred to the third step on July 9, 1996, after which the Company was not contacted again until November 11. However, the Company agrees to a meeting to be held on the afternoon of November 18.

At the November 18 meeting, the Grievance was restated and the answer that followed the Step 2 meeting was reviewed. In summary, the Company stated that it had not violated Sections 6 and 12 of the contract and retained the right, power, and authority to schedule the sourcing and receipts of fiber into converting facilities.

The Grievance was then appealed to arbitration on February 2, 1997. A hearing was held on Thursday, April 23, 1997, and the parties agreed first to proceed with the issue of whether the case was arbitrable.