Are these Grievances Arbitrable?

The allegation by the company is that the union aims at persuading the arbitrator that Manchester T&E should apply arbitration of Grievance No. 27-97 regardless of the failure by the union to give notice the firm properly and on time of the intention to arbitrate. A written notice was given to the company by George Mason but the notice was not timely. Given that the union did not provide a notice on time indicating the intent to allow for arbitration of the grievance emerging, the union assumed that the handwritten note give to the company by, Goode its representative, to be a request for extending the time limits.  The attempt by the union to portray this handwritten note to be a request for extending the Grievance No.27-97 had not merit at all.  Moreover, the union failed to follow the terms laid down in the agreement and the terms thereof, which had been agreed upon on mutual basis, and did not get an extension of time that had been agreed upon on mutual basis.

  The company on the other hand claims that it normally considers arbitration requests whose notice have been provided on time. Moreover, it claimed that the agreement with the union does not provide for the alteration of the contract by the arbitrator. On the basis of these reasons the, argument by the union that time limits have been extended in the past does not hold since, this time round there were no such agreement and hence the provision of the contract holds. The evidence presented by the company about untimely notice and contract alterations is its best evidence and arguments. As an arbitrator, I could not be influenced by the evidence if it violates existing contract. To solve the stalemate, I would have the parties review the contract since the grievances are not arbitrable.