OIL, CHEMICAL & ATOMIC WORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION, LOCAL # 4-447, ET AL., PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS,
v.
AMERICAN CYANAMID COMPANY, 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 award of pre-judgment interest is within the discretion of the court in the absence of a statutory provision, and no abuse of discretion was shown.
A union was awarded a judgment for unpaid vacation benefits under a collective bargaining agreement. The only issue on appeal was the denial of pre-ju…
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 Discretion Of The Court cases and more on FLexlaw
GODBOLD, Circuit Judge:
The union was awarded a judgment under § 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 185 et seq. for payment of unpaid vacation benefits under a collective bargaining agreement. The only issue is whether the court erred in declining to award pre-judgment interest (post-judgment interest was awarded).
The general federal rule is that in the absence of a statutory provision the award of pre-judgment interest is in the discretion of the court. Wolf v. Frank, 477 F. 2d 467 (CA 5, 1973) (§ 10b-5 securities case); Dennis v. Central Gulf Steamship, 453 F. 2d 137 (CA 5, 1972) (admiralty); Weeks v. Alonzo Cothron, 493 F. 2d 538 (CA 5, 1974) (longshoremen and harbor workers); Solomon v. Warren, 540 F. 2d 777 (CA 5, 1976) (DOHSA). The LMRA contains no explicit provision. We apply the general rule to this case. The Second Circuit has done the same. Lodges 743 and 1746 v. United Aircraft Corp., 534 F. 2d 422 (CA 2, 1975).
No basis is shown for holding that the district judge abused his discretion other than the contention that plaintiffs should be given pre-judgment interest to make them whole. This reason would apply with respect to any § 301 suit in which plaintiff successfully sues for money allegedly due under the terms of a collective bargaining agreement. This is not alone sufficient basis for a finding of abuse of discretion.
AFFIRMED.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Payne v. Panama Canal Co., 607 F.2d 155 (5th Cir. 1979)
-
Bricklayers' Pension Tr. Fund v. Danilo Taiariol, 671 F.2d 988 (6th Cir. 1982)
-
Sauers v. Alaska Barge & Transp., Inc., 600 F.2d 238 (9th Cir. 1979)
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Isbell Enters., Inc. v. Citizens Cas. Co. OF NEW York, 431 F.2d 409 (5th Cir. 1970)
- Wolf v. Frank, 477 F.2d 467 (5th Cir. 1973)
- Lodges 743 & 1746, Int'l Ass'n OF MacHinists & Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO v. United Aircraft Corp., 534 F.2d 422 (2d Cir. 1975)
- Dennis v. Cent. Gulf S.S. Corp., 453 F.2d 137 (5th Cir. 1972)
- Solomon v. Warren, 540 F.2d 777 (5th Cir. 1976)
- Weeks v. Alonzo Cothron, Inc., 493 F.2d 538 (5th Cir. 1974)