(U.S. 4th Cir., Civil Procedure, Contracts, Government Law, Labor & Employment Law) In plaintiffs' action against defendants-labor unions, alleging that the union provided them with false information regarding their eligibility to receive retirement incentive packages in 2007, judgment of the district court is affirmed in part, vacated and reversed in part and remanded where: 1) the court of appeals adopts the last-served defendant rule as the law of this circuit, and thus, the district court correctly ruled that defendants timely filed the joint notice of removal; but 2) the district court was without subject matter jurisdiction over the retirees' claims because the doctrine of complete preemption does not apply here to create a basis for removal under 28 U.S.C. section 1441.
Share:
More Like This
PPG Indus., Incorp. v. Int'l Chem. Workers Union Council of the United Food and Commercial Workers
(U.S. 4th Cir., Administrative Law, Contracts, Dispute Resolution & Arbitration, Labor & Employment Law) District court's order vacating an arbitrator's award in favor of a union on the ground that the arbitrator exceeded his authority by adding a term to the underlying contract is reversed and remanded as, even if the arbitrator erred, he acted within the scope of his authority under the contract.
United Steel, Paper & Forestry Int'l. Union v. ConocoPhillips Co.
(U.S. 9th Cir., Civil Procedure, Class Actions, Labor & Employment Law) In an action seeking compensation for defendant's alleged denial of employees' meal breaks, denial of class certification is reversed where the district court abused its discretion when it assumed, for the purpose of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 certification analysis and without any separate inquiry into the merits, that plaintiffs' legal theory would fail.
Turner v. United Steelworkers of Am.
(U.S. 8th Cir., Dispute Resolution & Arbitration, Labor & Employment Law) In an action seeking to confirm a portion of an arbitrator's back pay award allegedly imposed against a union, summary judgment for plaintiff is reversed where, in labeling the union "responsible for the back pay from January 21, 2005 through and including September 9, 2005," the arbitrator did not intend to award back pay against the union for that period.
