Such an award must be vacated because “arbitration is a matter of contract and a party cannot be required to submit to arbitration any dispute which he has not agreed so to submit.” United Steelworkers v. Warrior & Gulf Navigation Co., 363 U.S. 574, 582, 80 S.Ct. 1347, 1353, 4 L.Ed.2d 1409 (1960); see also Franklin Elec. Co. v. International Union, UAW, 886 F.2d 188, 190-91 (8th Cir.1989). While the issue of whether the arbitrator exceeded his authority is reviewable, we must broadly construe the collective bargaining agreement and resolve all doubts in favor of the arbitrator’s authority. Lackawanna Leather Co. v. United Food & Commercial Workers Int’l Union, 706 F.2d 228, 230-31 (8th Cir.1983) (en banc); see also Pack Concrete v. Cunningham, 866 F.2d 283, 285 (9th Cir.1989) (<HOLDING>). The district court thoroughly discussed this
holding that a union may breach its duty of fair representation by rejecting an employees interpretation of the collective bargaining agreement if the unions interpretation is itself arbitrary or unreasonable holding that an agencys interpretation of its own regulations is entitled to deference holding that where statute is ambiguous deference is appropriately accorded to agencys interpretation holding that agency interpretation which is reasonable is entitled to deference holding that an arbitrators interpretation of the scope of the issue submitted to him is entitled to the same deference accorded his interpretation of the collective bargaining agreement