Waldron v. Motor Coils Manufacturing Company
| Decision Date | 19 April 1985 |
| Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 84-2278. |
| Citation | 606 F. Supp. 658 |
| Parties | Evaline WALDRON, Plaintiff, v. MOTOR COILS MANUFACTURING COMPANY, a corporation, and International Union of Electronic, Electrical, Technical, Salaried and Machine Workers, AFL-CIO, a labor organization. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania |
James M. Perich, Pittsburgh, Pa., for plaintiff.
Theodore Goldberg, Sidney Zonn, Pittsburgh, Pa., for defendants.
Plaintiff's complaint alleges that she was discharged by Defendant employer contrary to a collective bargaining agreement on March 23, 1984. She also alleges that she requested of her union that a grievance be filed on her behalf on the same date under the collective bargaining agreement. The union refused to act. Plaintiff's present complaint alleging a breach of the collective bargaining agreement by the employer and a breach of the union's fiduciary duty was filed with the clerk on September 21, 1984. In accordance with Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(c)(2)(C)(ii), a copy of the complaint and summons were mailed to defendant employer on October 4, 1984 by registered mail, and were received on October 9, 1984.
A copy of the complaint and summons was mailed to Defendant Union at its Washington D.C. headquarters on September 27, 1984, and was acknowledged as received by an Associate General Counsel on October 4, 1984.
Both defendants have moved for summary judgment with supporting evidentiary materials admissible under Fed.R.Civ.P. 56 to establish the above facts. In addition there has been presented by plaintiff a copy of the collective bargaining agreement showing that an employee-grievant and/or his Steward must file a grievance within five (5) days of the occurrence or five days after the alleged grievance is brought to the attention of the union. A grievance entered after these limits (5 days) will be considered closed.
Defendants rely upon the decision in Del Costello v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, 462 U.S. 151, 103 S.Ct. 2281, 76 L.Ed.2d 476 (1983), which held that the statute of limitations to be applied to actions under Section 301 of the LMRA, against both an employer and a union for breach of a collective bargaining agreement and the union's breach of its duty of fair representation, must be brought against both employer and union within six months after the cause of action accrues.
It has been held in a number of cases since Del Costello that the requirement of both filing and service within six months applies. Simon v. Kroger, 743 F.2d 1544, reh. den. 749 F.2d 733, 117 LRRM 2700 (11th Cir.1984); Howard v. Lockheed-Georgia Co., 742 F.2d 612; 101 L.C. 11, 196 (11th Cir.1984); Hoffman v. United Markets, Inc., 117 LRRM 3229 (N.D.Cal.1984).
It is established without contest that the layoff occurred March 23, 1984. She filed her complaint on ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
West v. Conrail
...(11th Cir.1984); Ellenbogen v. Rider Maintenance Corp., 621 F. Supp. 324 (RLC), slip op. (S.D.N.Y.1985); Waldron v. Motor Coils Manufacturing Co., 606 F.Supp. 658 (W.D.Penn.1985); Thompson v. Ralston Purina Co., 599 F.Supp. 756 (W.D.Mich.1984); Hoffman v. United Markets, Inc., 117 L.R.R.M. ......
-
Macon v. ITT Continental Baking Co., Inc.
...of both filing and service within six months applies to hybrid section 301/fair representation suits. See Waldron v. Motor Coils Manufacturing Co., 606 F.Supp. 658, 659 (W.D.Penn.1985) (relying on Howard and Simon ); Thompson v. Ralston Purina Co., 599 F.Supp. 756, 758 (W.D.Mich.1984) (rely......
-
Jackson v. National Maritime Union of America, Civ. A. No. 85-3883.
...period after the cause of action accrued, it is time barred. West v. Conrail, 780 F.2d 361, 363 (3d Cir.1985); Waldron v. Motor Coils Mfg., 606 F.Supp. 658 (W.D.Pa.1985). In West v. Conrail, supra, the cause of action accrued March 25. The complaint was filed within six months, on September......
-
Berthelot v. Martin Marietta Corp., Civ. A. No. 85-4220.
...Greyhound Lines, 756 F.2d 818 (11th Cir.1985). This interpretation has been followed by district courts in Waldron v. Motor Coils Manufacturing Company, 606 F.Supp. 658 (W.D.Pa.1985) and Hoffman v. United Markets, Inc., 117 L.R.R.M. 3229 (N.D.Ca. Conversely, three Justices of the United Sta......