CLARENCE H. HAND, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
v.
INTERNATIONAL CHEMICAL WORKERS UNION, INTERNATIONAL CHEMICAL WORKERS UNION LOCAL NO. 328, AND ARIZONA CHEMICAL CO., DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES
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 Supreme Court's decision in DelCostello requires applying a six-month statute of limitations to both employer and union claims in a hybrid collective bargaining/fair representation suit.
An employee sued his employer for breach of a collective bargaining agreement and his union for breach of its duty of fair representation regarding a …
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 Arbitration Award Vacation cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
The original panel opinion in this case1 was vacated to be reviewed by the en banc court of this Circuit which withheld its ruling pending the Supreme Court’s decision in DelCostello v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters,-U.S.-, 103 S.Ct. 2281, 76 L.Ed.2d 476 (1983). It has now been remanded, 712 F. 2d 456, to the panel for reconsideration in light of DelCostello.
The issue before us in our prior hearing was the applicable statute of limitations to an employee’s suit against an employer and a union alleging a breach by the employer of a collective bargaining agreement and a breach by the union of its duty of fair representation in its handling of the subsequent grievance procedure against the employer.
The trial court had dismissed the plaintiff-employee’s claims against both the union and the employer for lack of timeliness. Based on the Supreme Court’s ruling in United Parcel Service, Inc. v. Mitchell, 451 U.S. 56, 101 S.Ct. 1559, 67 L.Ed.2d 732 (1981), we held that the employee’s claim against the employer was governed by Florida’s 90-day statute of limitations for the vacation of an arbitration award. Fla.Stat. Ann. § 682.13(2).
In the absence of guidance from the Supreme Court on the applicable statute of limitations to the fair representation claim, we applied Florida’s four-year statute of limitations for negligence and intentional torts. Since the employee in the present case had brought his collective bargaining/fair representation claims within four months of the injuries complained of, we reversed the district court’s dismissal of the suit against the union and affirmed the dismissal as to the employer. In DelCostello, the Supreme Court overturned its prior decision in Mitchell and ruled that the six month statute of limitations of Section 10(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 160(b), governed both facets of the “hybrid” collective bargaining/fair representation claim. Since the action brought by the employee in the present ease is clearly in the same factual and legal posture as the situation considered in DelCostello, we are compelled to amend our previous ruling and hold that the district court erred in dismissing both as to the defendant-union, the International ■Chemical Workers, and the defendant-employer, the Arizona Chemical Company. We therefore REVERSE and REMAND for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
. 681 F. 2d 1308 (11th Cir.1982).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Welyczko v. U.S. AIR, Inc., 733 F.2d 239 (2d Cir. 1984)…Int’l Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local Union No. 600, 712 F. 2d 1194 (7th Cir.1983) (per curiam); Lincoln v. District 9 of the Int’l Ass’n of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, 723 F. 2d 627 (8th Cir.1983); Hand v. Int’l [*241] Chemical Workers Union, 712 F. 2d 1350 (11th Cir.1983) (per curiam); contra, Edwards v. Teamsters Local No. 36, 719 F. 2d 1036 (9th Cir.1983), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 104 S.Ct. 1599, 80 L.Ed.2d 130 (1984). Ill Appellant urges us to carve out an exception to the retroactivity principle…
-
Smith v. Gen. Motors Corp., 747 F.2d 372 (6th Cir. 1984)…83); Edwards v. Sea-Land Service, Inc., 720 F. 2d 857 (5th Cir.1983); Storck v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, 712 F. 2d 1194 (7th Cir.1983); Lincoln v. District 9, 723 F. 2d 627 (8th Cir.1983); Hand v. International Chemical Workers Union, 712 F. 2d 1350 (11th Cir.1983).6 Only the Ninth Circuit [*375] has found that DelCostello should not be applied retrospectively. See Barina v. Gulf Trading & Transportation Co., 726 F. 2d 560 (9th Cir.1984); Edwards v. Teamsters Local No. 36, 719 F. 2d 1036 (9th C…1 / 2
-
Miles Lincoln v. Dist. 9 OF the Int'l Ass'n OF MacHinists & Aerospace Workers & Anheuser Busch Inc., 723 F.2d 627 (8th Cir. 1983)…or inequitable so as to violate the third prong of the Chevron test. Furthermore, we note that three other circuit courts and at least one district court have chosen to apply DelCostello retroactively. Hand v. International Chemical Workers Union, 712 F. 2d 1350 (11th Cir.1983) (per curiam); Perez v. Dana Corp. & USWA, 718 F. 2d 581 (3d Cir.1983); Storck v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, 712 F. 2d 1194 (7th Cir.1983) (per curiam); Harpp v. General Electric Co., 571 F.Supp. 426 (N.D.N.Y.1983); Contr…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- DelCOSTELLO v. Int'l Bhd. of Teamsters, 462 U.S. 151 (U.S. 1983)
- United Parcel Serv., Inc. v. Mitchell, 451 U.S. 56 (U.S. 1981)
- Hand v. Int'l Chem. Workers Union, 681 F.2d 1308 (11th Cir. 1982)
- Hand v. Int'l Chem. Workers Union, 712 F.2d 456 (11th Cir. 1983)