Arkansas State Highway Emp. Local 1315 v. Smith, 78-1188
Decision Date | 07 November 1978 |
Docket Number | No. 78-1188,78-1188 |
Citation | 585 F.2d 876 |
Parties | 99 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 3168 ARKANSAS STATE HIGHWAY EMPLOYEES LOCAL 1315, James P. Rowell, Robert C. Conley, Jake Franks, Edwin Shinn, Spencer Y. Land, Walter Mays, Robert Watson and A. D. Tate, Appellees, v. Maurice SMITH, Lawrence Blackwell, J. C. Patterson, George Kell and James A. Branyan, Individually and as Commissioners of the Arkansas State Highway Commission, and Henry Gray, Individually and as Director of the Arkansas State Highway Department, Appellants. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
Friday, Eldredge & Clark, Little Rock, Ark. and Tom Keys, Atty., Arkansas State Highway Commission, Little Rock, Ark., for appellants. Appendix was also filed by them.
John T. Lavey, Little Rock, Ark., for appellees.
Before LAY, BRIGHT and ROSS, Circuit Judges.
The Arkansas State Highway Employees Local 1315, and eight individual employees of the Arkansas State Highway Department instituted this action for declaratory and injunctive relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Maurice Smith, Lawrence Blackwell, J. C. Patterson, George Kell and James A. Branyan, individually and as Commissioners of the Arkansas State Highway Commission, and Henry Gray, individually and as Director of the Arkansas State Highway Department. The complaint alleged, Inter alia, that the refusal of the Commission and the Department to allow Local 1315 to file or initiate grievances on behalf of its members deprived Local 1315 of its right to petition government for the redress of grievances in violation of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
The circumstances leading up to the present litigation concern Robert Watson and W. E. Hughes, employees of the Arkansas State Highway Department. Watson was discharged by the Department and Hughes was suspended without pay for five days. Following unsuccessful discussions with their supervisors, each employee sent a letter to Local 1315, explaining the nature of their grievance and requesting the union to process the grievances on their behalf. In each case the union forwarded the employee's letter to the designated employer's representative and included its own letter stating that it represented the employees and desired to set up a meeting. The employer's representative did not respond to the union's letter. Thereafter each employee filed a written complaint...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
THE RIGHT TO PETITION AS ACCESS AND INFORMATION.
...and their "channels and procedures"). (261) 441 U.S. 463(1979). (262) Id. (263) Id. (264) Ark. State Highway Emps. Local 1315 v. Smith, 585 F.2d 876, 877 (8th Cir. 1978) (citing United Mine Workers v. Illinois State Bar Association, 389 U.S. 217, 222-23 (1967)) (holding that limitations on ......