Panza v. Armco Steel Corporation
| Decision Date | 02 April 1963 |
| Docket Number | No. 14190.,14190. |
| Citation | 316 F.2d 69 |
| Parties | Orest PANZA, Frank Smith, Frank Panza, Stanley Halovanic, Joseph Mali, Sam La Cava and Ralph Zoerb, Appellants, v. ARMCO STEEL CORPORATION. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit |
Samuel L. Goldstein, Pittsburgh, Pa. (Suto, Power, Goldstein & Walsh, Leo Kostman, Pittsburgh, Pa., on the brief), for appellants.
David B. Buerger, Pittsburgh, Pa. (John G. Buchanan, Jr., Louis Emanuel, Buchanan, Ingersoll, Rodewald, Kyle & Buerger, Pittsburgh, Pa., on the brief), for appellee.
Before HASTIE, GANEY and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
This is the second of two actions, both litigated in the District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, seeking essentially the same relief. The present plaintiffs are members of a local union which, together with a sister local and their parent international, brought the first suit as collective bargaining representatives of the members of the locals, complaining that the defendant employer, Armco Steel Corp., had unlawfully failed to respect the seniority of the members of the locals in connection with the transfer of employees from a discontinued plant to a new one. It was alleged that the employer had violated a master collective bargaining agreement and a local supplement covering seniority rights. The district court ordered the arbitration of this matter and the arbitrator's ultimate award, giving the membership of the local some relief but less than they sought, was complied with by the employer. The district court then dismissed the action with prejudice.
Now, certain dissatisfied members of the local, suing for themselves and their fellow members, have brought this second action against Armco Steel Corp. seeking damages for the employer's failure to grant those rights of employment and status in the new plant that were asserted and litigated in the earlier suit. It is again asserted that the employer has violated rights conferred by the master collective bargaining agreement and the local seniority supplement.
The plaintiffs do not claim that they were unaware of the earlier litigation. Indeed, it appears that one or more of them actively participated in the hearing before the arbitrator. They do assert that the reference to arbitration in the first action was unwarranted and illegal and that the outcome of the arbitration was affected by fraudulent representations made to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Michota v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc.
...challenging the propriety of Falstaff's deposit of the escrowed funds in the Falstaff plan, rather than the Trust Fund. Panza v. Armco Steel Corp., 316 F.2d 69 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 375 U.S. 897, 84 S.Ct. 174, 11 L.Ed.2d 125 (1963). Res judicata effect is clearly accorded on unchallenged......
-
Meza v. General Battery Corp.
...to bring claims on behalf of individual members), cert. denied, 393 U.S. 852, 89 S.Ct. 88, 21 L.Ed.2d 122 (1968); Panza v. Armco Steel Corp., 316 F.2d 69, 70 (3d Cir.) (union was "duly constituted representative of its members"), cert. denied, 375 U.S. 897, 84 S.Ct. 174, 11 L.Ed.2d 125 (196......
-
Crane v. COM'R OF DEPT. OF AGR., FOOD & RURAL RES.
...association to pursue the action on his behalf. See also Expert Electric, Inc. v. Levine, 554 F.2d at 1232-33; Panza v. Armco Steel Corp., 316 F.2d 69, 70 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 375 U.S. 897, 84 S.Ct. 174, 11 L.Ed.2d 125 The authorization by individual members may be express or implied. T......
-
E.E.O.C. v. U.S. Steel Corp.
...were adequately represented. Bolden v. State Police, 578 F.2d 912, 918-19 (3d Cir.1978) (employee association); Panza v. Armco Steel Corp., 316 F.2d 69 (3d Cir.1963) (labor Well established precedent also holds that the judgment in an action in which a government agency or officer represent......