International Association of MacHinists and Aerospace Workers, Afl-Cio v. Aloha Airlines, Inc. (1986)

This cut-off date is not challenged on appeal 2 But cf. Barina v. Gulf Trading and Transportation Co., 726 F.2d 560 , 562 n. 2 (9th Cir.1984) (suggesting that a claim does not accrue until the last date at which the union could have brought the grievance under the collective bargaining agreement) 3 See also Proudfoot v. Seafarer's International Union, 779 F.2d 1558, 1559 (11th Cir.1986) ("hybrid" action against union and employer accrues when employee learns that the "grieva…

See also Proudfoot v. Seafarer’s International Union, 779 F.2d 1558, 1559 (11th Cir.1986) ("hybrid" action against union and employer accrues when employee learns that the “grievance procedure was exhausted or otherwise broke down to the employee’s disadvantage.”); Hayes v. Reynolds Metals Co., 769 F.2d 1520, 1522 (11th Cir.1985) (per curiam) (duty of fair representation claim based on merger of seniority rosters did not accrue until "grievance procedure has been exhausted o…

See, e.g., Aircraft Mechanics Fraternal Ass’n v. Atlantic Coast Airlines, 55 F.3d 90, 93 (2d Cir.1995); International Assoc. of Machinists & Aerospace Workers v. Aloha Airlines, Inc., 781 F.2d 1400, 1408 (9th Cir.1986).

Ass’n of Machinists v. Aloha Airlines, 781 F.2d 1400, 1405-1408 (9th Cir.1986) (the circuit court held that the limitation period applicable to a combined claim for breach of the collective bargaining agreement and breach of the status quo provisions of the RLA is the six month period contained in § 10(b) of the NLRA, 29 U.S.C. § 160 (b)).

“State legislatures do not devise their limitations periods with national interests in mind and ... the lengthy state limitations periods analogous to duty of fair representation claims [3 to 6 years] would frustrate ‘the relatively rapid final resolution of labor disputes favored by federal law’.” [I.A.M., supra, at p. 1406.] Since Delcostello concluded that a more analogous period was the six-month limitations period specified in section 10(b), Railway Labor Act 29 U.S.C. …

See Int'l Union, United Auto Workers v. Hoosier Cardinal Corp., 383 U.S. 696 , 86 S.Ct. 1107 , 16 L.Ed.2d 192 (1966); see also Int'l Ass'n of Machinists v. Aloha Airlines, Inc., 781 F.2d 1400 , 1406 n. 2 (9th Cir.1986), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 107 S.Ct. 400 , 93 L.Ed.2d 354 (1986). 6 The case before us is somewhat unusual in that it does not fit neatly into one category or the other.

See Int’l Union, United Auto Workers v. Hoosier Cardinal Corp., 383 U.S. 696 , 86 S.Ct. 1107 , 16 L.Ed.2d 192 (1966); see also Int’l Ass’n of Machinists v. Aloha Airlines, Inc., 781 F.2d 1400 , 1406 n. 2 (9th Cir.1986), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 107 S.Ct. 400 , 93 L.Ed.2d 354 (1986).

See also International Ass’n of Machinists & Aerospace Workers v. Aloha Airlines, Inc., 781 F.2d 1400, 1408 (9th Cir.1986); Robinson v. Pan American World Airlines, Inc., 777 F.2d 84, 89 (2d Cir.1985).

Id., at 1202, citing Harris v. Jacobs, 621 F.2d 341, 343 (9th Cir.1980); see International Ass’n of Machinists v. Aloha Airlines, 781 F.2d 1400, 1404 (9th Cir. 1986); Derish v. San Mateo-Burlingame Bd. of Realtors, 724 F.2d 1347 , 1349 (9th Cir. 1983) overruled on other grounds, McClain v. Apodaca, supra. The court noted further that the last of these factors was the most important.

See International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers v. Aloha Airlines, *1410 Inc., 781 F.2d 1400 (9th Cir.1986).