Sherman Earl Hays v. National Electrical Contractors Association, Inc., Defendants (1986)
green
· 6 citation events
across 4 courts.
Showing the 5 strongest citers on record
(one row per citing case, strongest signal kept).
Sort:
By significance ·
Most recent
green
No. 88-15180 (1990)
We have concluded repeatedly that mere negligent conduct on the part of a union does not constitute a breach of the union's duty of fair representation.... 30 .... 31 Sound policy reasons militate against imposing liability on unions for errors of judgment made while representing their members in the collective bargaining process. 32 See also Crusos v. United Transportation Union, Local 1201, 786 F.2d 970, 973 (9th Cir.1986) ("To show a breach of the Union's duty of fair rep…
green
Barthelemy v. Air Lines Pilots Ass'n (1990)
See also Crusos v. United Transportation Union, Local 1201, 786 F.2d 970, 973 (9th Cir.1986) (“To show a breach of the Union’s duty of fair representation, appellant must demonstrate 'substantial evidence of fraud, deceitful action, or dishonest conduct.’ Humphrey v. Moore, 375 U.S. 335, 348 [ 84 S.Ct. 363, 371 , 11 L.Ed.2d 370 [1964]”); Hays v. National Electrical Contractors Association, 781 F.2d 1321, 1324 (9th Cir.1985) (“The Ninth Circuit has defined as ‘arbitrary’ cond…
Contractors Ass’n, 781 F.2d 1321, 1324 (9th Cir.1985) (quoting id.).
green
Smith v. Pacific Bell Telephone Co., Inc. (2009)
CBA Art. 7.01-7.07. “[T'jbe union must balance many collective and individual interests,” and thus is “afforded substantial deference in its decisions.” Hays v. National Electrical Contractors Assoc’n, Inc., 781 F.2d 1321, 1324-25 (9th Cir.1986).
The adverse effect on one group of employ ees does not necessarily render a classification rule arbitrary or discriminatory, for “the complete satisfaction of all who are represented is hardly to be expected.” See Hays v. National Electrical Contractors Ass’n, 781 F.2d 1321, 1324 (9th Cir.1985) (reclassification of electricians living more than 40 miles from hiring hall to lower priority employment group upheld); see also Ford Motor Co. v. Huffman, 345 U.S. 330, 338 , 73 S.C…