Rinker v. Local Union No. 24 of Amalgamated Lithographers, 13978.

CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (3rd Circuit)
Writing for the CourtGANEY and SMITH, Circuit , and AUGELLI
Citation313 F.2d 956
PartiesFloyd RINKER, Appellant, v. LOCAL UNION NO. 24 OF AMALGAMATED LITHOGRAPHERS OF AMERICA, an Unincorporated Labor Association, Affiliated With the AFL-CIO, Amalgamated Lithographers of America, an Unincorporated Internal Labor Association, William G. Johnston Company, a Corporation, Theodore T. Meyers, Individually and as President of Local Union No. 24, Frank M. Rogers, Individually and as Financial Secretary of Local Union No. 24, and Paul Keller, Appellees.
Docket NumberNo. 13978.,13978.
Decision Date19 February 1963

313 F.2d 956 (1963)

Floyd RINKER, Appellant,
v.
LOCAL UNION NO. 24 OF AMALGAMATED LITHOGRAPHERS OF AMERICA, an Unincorporated Labor Association, Affiliated With the AFL-CIO, Amalgamated Lithographers of America, an Unincorporated Internal Labor Association, William G. Johnston Company, a Corporation, Theodore T. Meyers, Individually and as President of Local Union No. 24, Frank M. Rogers, Individually and as Financial Secretary of Local Union No. 24, and Paul Keller, Appellees.

No. 13978.

United States Court of Appeals Third Circuit.

Argued November 9, 1962.

Decided February 19, 1963.


313 F.2d 957

James A. Ashton, Pittsburgh, Pa., for appellant.

A. W. Forsyth, Jr., Pittsburgh, Pa. (J. R. Van Kirk, Tener, Van Kirk, Wolf & Moore, Pittsburgh, Pa., on the brief), for employer appellee William G. Johnston Company.

James Craig Kuhn, Jr., Pittsburgh, Pa. (Arnold D. Wilner, Wilner, Wilner & Kuhn, Pittsburgh, Pa., on the brief), for Union appellee (Local No. 24).

Before GANEY and SMITH, Circuit Judges, and AUGELLI, District Judge.

AUGELLI, District Judge.

The appeal in this case must be dismissed because the order from which the appeal is taken lacks finality and was not entered in accordance with the provisions of Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

The action is one under the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959 LMRDA, 29 U.S.C.A. § 401 et seq.

The complaint is in two counts. Plaintiff, Floyd Rinker, is a former member of defendant Local Union No. 24 of Amalgamated Lithographers of America (Local 24) and a former employee of defendant William G. Johnston Company, which had a collective bargaining agreement with Local 24. Other defendants are the international union of Amalgamated Lithographers of America and certain named officers of Local 24.

In the first count, which is directed against the labor unions, international and local, and officers of the latter, plaintiff alleges he was expelled from union membership in violation of the procedural safeguards against improper disciplinary action provided by section 101(a) (5) of LMRDA, 29 U.S.C.A. § 411(a) (5).

In the second count, which is directed against all defendants, plaintiff alleges that he was fired from his job with the Johnston Company as a result of a conspiracy between the union defendants and his employer.

The complaint asks for the following relief:

As against the defendant unions plaintiff seeks restoration of his union membership;

As against...

To continue reading

Request your trial
17 cases
  • Thompson v. New York Central Railroad Company, 215
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit)
    • May 17, 1966
    ...to the same effect. See Rinker v. Local No. 24, Amalgamated Lithographers, W.D.Pa.1962, 201 F.Supp. 204, appeal dismissed, 3 Cir., 1963, 313 F.2d 956; Bennett v. Hoisting & Portable Engineers, D.Or.1960, 207 F.Supp. 361; Strauss v. International Bhd. of Teamsters, E.D.Pa.1959, 179 F.Supp. A......
  • Abrams v. Carrier Corporation, 408
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit)
    • November 4, 1970
    ...(S. D.N.Y.1967); Rinker v. Local Union No. 24 of Amalgamated Lithographers of America, 201 F.Supp. 204 (W.D.Pa. 1962), appeal dismissed, 313 F.2d 956 (3d Cir. 1963); Fogg v. Randolph, 244 F.Supp. 885, 888 (S.D.N.Y.1962). Jurisdiction over an employer comes from § 301 and where, as here, the......
  • Woody v. STERLING ALUMINUM PRODUCTS INCORPORATED, 63 C 345.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 8th Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of Missouri)
    • January 21, 1965
    ...inner union rights. See Rinker v. Local Union No. 24 of Amal. Lithographers, D.C., 201 F.Supp. 204 (1962), dismissed as then nonappealable 313 F.2d 956. See also Tomko v. Hilbert, 3 Cir., 288 F.2d 625 (1961), Horn v. Amalgamated Ass'n of Street, Elec. Ry. & M. C. Emp., D.C., 194 F.Supp. 560......
  • Taschner v. Hill, Civ. A. No. 83-4632.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of Pennsylvania)
    • March 26, 1984
    ...45 L.Ed.2d 671 (1975); Rinker v. Local Union No. 24 of Amalgamated Lithographers of America, 201 F.Supp. 204 (W.D.Pa.1962) appeal denied, 313 F.2d 956 (3d Cir.1963) (section 101(a) deals with union-member relationship and not suits involving employer-employee relationship). Nor will charact......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT