346 F.2d 242 (7th Cir. 1965), 14945, International Union, United Auto., Aerospace and Agr. Implement Workers of America (UAW), AFL-CIO v. Hoosier Cardinal Corp.

Docket Nº:14945.
Citation:346 F.2d 242
Party Name:INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AEROSPACE AND AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA (UAW), AFL-CIO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. HOOSIER CARDINAL CORPORATION, an Indiana corporation, Defendant-Appellee.
Case Date:June 04, 1965
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

Page 242

346 F.2d 242 (7th Cir. 1965)

INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AEROSPACE AND AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA (UAW), AFL-CIO, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

HOOSIER CARDINAL CORPORATION, an Indiana corporation, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 14945.

United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.

June 4, 1965

Page 243

Stephen I. Schlossberg, Detroit, Mich., Daniel F. Cummings, Indianapolis, Ind., Joseph L. Rauh, Jr., Washington, D.C., Harold Katz, Chicago, Ill., Lynnville G. Miles, Indianapolis, Ind., for appellant, Judith Bleich Kahn, Detroit, Mich., of counsel.

Harry P. Dees, Arthur R. Donovan, Joseph A. Yocum, Evansville, Ind., for defendant-appellee, Kahn, Dees, Donovan & Kahn, Evansville, Ind., of counsel.

Before SCHNACKENBERG, KNOCH and SWYGERT, Circuit Judges.

SCHNACKENBERG, Circuit Judge.

International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW), AFL-CIO, plaintiff, appeals from a judgment of the district court dismissing plaintiff's complaint because it showed on its face that the causes of action upon which recovery was sought were barred by the statute of limitations of the state of Indiana.

The complaint avers that plaintiff, hereinafter sometimes referred to as the Union, having a collective bargaining agreement with Hoosier Cardinal Corporation, an Indiana corporation, defendant, which required vacation pay for its employees, by this action seeks to rely upon various statutes of the state of Indiana, (a) providing for the payment of wages due to employees at least weekly, Burns Ind.Stat.Ann. (1952 Repl.) § 40-104(b) making an employer who fails for 10 days after demand to make payment therefor weekly liable for the same together with penalty and reasonable attorneys' fees, to be recovered in a civil action, Burns Ind.Stat.Ann. (1952 Repl.) § 40-105, and (c) providing liquidated damages for such failure to pay, for each day, 10% Of the amount due twice each month, not exceeding double the amount of wages due, and a reasonable fee for plaintiff's attorney, as provided in Burns Ind.Stat.Ann. (1952 Repl.) § 40-102.

It is significant that in this case no recovery is sought for or on behalf of plaintiff union itself. Any recovery in this case would inure to the exclusive benefit of the individual employee in varying amounts depending upon the individual's employment contract with defendant.

The district court relied on Burns Ind.Stat.Ann. (1946 Repl.) § 2-601 (Supp.), which provides a six-year statute of limitations on accounts and contracts not in writing.

The district court noted that the complaint herein was filed on April 8, 1964, which was more than six years from June 1, 1957 when the alleged breach of employment with individual employees occurred.

We agree with and affirm the holding and judgment of the district court. Before arriving at this conclusion we have considered each of the two reasons advanced by plaintiff which seeks to demonstrate that the district court erred.

First, plaintiff contends that no state statute of limitations can bar an action under section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act, 29 U.S.C.A.§ 185. It arrives at this conclusion by reasoning that

'* * * it is a firm, well-established, and judicially recognized policy of Congress that insofar as concerns the application of legal principles the resolution of labor questions under federal law should not depend in any manner upon the geographic location in which such an action arises. While the fostering of uniformity in this area normally concerns substantive legal issues, procedural rules which may be dispositive of a dispute (such as the question here involved of the application of a state statute of limitations) are no less significant. The decision of

Page 244

the court below to impose local time limitations on a Section 301 action disturbs the national...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP