(Download) "Mcnaughton v. Dillingham Corp." by United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ~ eBook PDF Kindle ePub Free
eBook details
- Title: Mcnaughton v. Dillingham Corp.
- Author : United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
- Release Date : January 04, 1984
- Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
- Pages : * pages
- Size : 60 KB
Description
Order In McNaughton v. Dillingham Corporation, et al., 707 F.2d 1042 (9th Cir. 1983), we upheld the application of Oregon's twenty-day limitation period for filing exceptions to arbitration awards, Or. Rev. Stat. § 33.310 (1981), to bar plaintiff's claim against his employer, Dillingham Corporation, brought under § 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA), 29 U.S.C. § 185. We further found this was not to be an appropriate case to address Dillingham's suggestion that the court apply the six-month limitation period under Section 10(b) of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), 29 U.S.C. § 160(b). We reversed the District Court's application of Oregon's twenty-day limitation period for filing exceptions to arbitration awards to plaintiff's claim against Local 1020 brought under § 301 of the LMRA. We did so in agreement with Justice Stevens' opinion in United Parcel Service, Inc. v. Mitchell, 451 U.S. 56, 73, 101 S. Ct. 1559, 67 L. Ed. 2d 732 (1981), that the most appropriate state statute of limitations to apply to actions by a union member against his local union for breach of its duty of fair representation is Oregon's two-year limitation on professional malpractice actions, Or. Rev. Stat. § 12.110. In Del Costello v. Teamsters, 462 U.S. 151, 103 S. Ct. 2281, 76 L. Ed. 2d 476 (1983), the United States Supreme Court held that the proper statute of limitations to apply to a suit by an employee against an employer for breach of a collective bargaining agreement and against a union for breach of its duty of fair representation is the six-month limitations period in § 10(b) of the NLRA rather than any state statutes of limitations.