ARTHUR E. GRUBBS, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
v.
THE PENNSYLVANIA RAILROAD CO., DEFENDANT-APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the discharged employee's breach of contract action was prematurely filed because he failed to exhaust his remedies under the Railway Labor Act and the collective bargaining agreement.
A railroad employee, a union member, was discharged and filed a breach of contract action. The railroad moved to dismiss, arguing the National Railroa…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Exhaustion Of Contractual Remedies cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Plaintiff-appellant Grubbs, an Ohio citizen and a long-time employee of the railroad, was discharged September 2, 1965. This action for breach of contract was filed under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1337.
At the time of his discharge Grubbs was a member of the Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen. There was in existence between the railroad and its employees a collective bargaining agreement pursuant and subject to the Railway Labor Act, 45 U.S.C. § 151 et seq.
The railroad moved to dismiss the action for lack of jurisdiction because the complaint shows on its face that the controversy is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the National Railroad Adjustment Board and that Grubbs has not exhausted his remedies under the Railway Labor Act in that he has failed to avail himself of the procedures for settling disputes prescribed by the collective bargaining agreement. District Judge Joseph P. Kinneary granted the motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction on the ground that Grubbs has not exhausted the remedies made available to him by the Railway Labor Act.
We affirm upon the authority of Walker v. Southern Railway Co., 385 U.S. 196, 87 S.Ct. 365, 17 L.Ed.2d 294, as construed and applied by this Court in Belanger v. New York Central Railroad, 384 F. 2d 35, and the cases therein cited.
Under Ohio law, the exhaustion of administrative and contractual remedies is a prerequisite to the filing of an action by a discharged employee against a railroad. Ladd v. New York Central R. R. Co., 170 Ohio St. 491, 504-505, 166 N.E. 2d 231, 240. In that case the Supreme Court of Ohio said:
“We conclude that the pertinent provisions of the Railway Labor Act, taken in conjunction with the collective bargaining agreement between the brotherhood and the railroad here, provided a full and complete administrative remedy for the plaintiff which was not exhausted by him. The action was, therefore, prematurely brought * *
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Sullivan v. Pac. & Arctic Ry. & Navigation Co., 439 F.2d 267 (9th Cir. 1971)
Authorities Cited
- Walker v. S. Ry. Co., 385 U.S. 196 (U.S. 1966)
- Belanger v. The NEW York Cent. R.R. Co., 384 F.2d 35 (6th Cir. 1967)