
    INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS AND AEROSPACE WORKERS AERONAUTICAL INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT LODGE 776 AFL-CIO, Plaintiff-Appellant v. LOCKHEED MARTIN CORPORATION, doing business as Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 09-10055.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Oct. 26, 2009.
    James Roddy Tanner, Tanner & Associates PC, Fort Worth, TX, Robert Edward McKnight, Jr., Law Office of Robert E. McKnight Jr, Victoria, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
    David M. Ellis, Christopher Donald Kratovil, K & L Gates LLP, Dallas, TX, for Defendant-Appellee.
    Before REAVLEY, JOLLY, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Plaintiff-Appellant International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers Aeronautical Industrial District Lodge 776 AFL-CIO (“the Union”) appeals the district court’s ruling that the Union waived any legal challenge to a final arbitration award by failing to provide Defendant-Appellee Lockheed Martin Corporation (“Lockheed”) with timely notice of its objection in accordance with the applicable provision of the parties’ collective bargaining agreement (“the CBA”), which specifies that

[njotice of any claims by either party that an arbitrator’s award ... is invalid in whole or in part, under the laws of the State of Texas shall be served in writing upon the other party within ten (10) days after receipt of the written award in question.... The parties agree that if such notice is not given, such failure shall constitute a waiver of any legal objections to said award.

The Union concedes that it did not serve Lockheed with written notice of its objection within ten days of receiving the arbitrator’s award in writing. In fact, the Union never served Lockheed with such notice. As the award thus became final after the passage of the CBA’s specified time in which to serve written notice of invalidity, the arbitrator lacked any authority to revisit the award.

Having heard the arguments of opposing counsel and having reviewed the record on appeal and the applicable law, we perceive no reversible error in the district court’s rulings. Therefore, the judgment of that court is, in all respects, AFFIRMED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     