Legal Opinion

Nicely v. USX

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania

Decided July 7, 1989No. Civ. A. No. 87-2429Published

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION AND ORDER

SIMMONS, District Judge.

Four years ago, Judge Mencer made clear to Plaintiff that fair representation claims are not triable to a jury when he struck Plaintiffs jury demand in Nicely v. U.S. Steel Corporation, et al. (C.A. No. 83-2750). Undeterred, Plaintiff has again pleaded in the instant action that he is entitled to a jury trial of his fair representation claims. He was wrong four years ago; he is wrong today.

In his Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that USX Corporation breached the collective bargaining agreement between itself and the United Steelworkers of America when it…

2Cases cited34 opinions

  1. Larry Bonner v. City of Prichard, AlabamaCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 1981
  2. Vaca v. SipesSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
  3. Albemarle Paper Co. v. MoodySupreme Court of the United States · 1975
  4. DelCostello v. International Brotherhood of TeamstersSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
  5. National Labor Relations Board v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1937

29 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API