George Peoples v. Southern Pacific Company, a Corporation

Ninth Circuit

George Peoples v. Southern Pacific Company, a Corporation

232 F.2d 707, 37 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2739, 1956 U.S. App. LEXIS 4497

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedMarch 13, 1956

Docket15-1074

StatusPublished

Cited by13 cases

This text of 232 F.2d 707 (George Peoples v. Southern Pacific Company, a Corporation) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

George Peoples v. Southern Pacific Company, a Corporation, 232 F.2d 707, 37 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2739, 1956 U.S. App. LEXIS 4497 (9th Cir. 1956).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is the third of a series of three recent cases in which employees of appellee have claimed damages in the United States District Courts for alleged wrongful discharge in violation of collective bargaining agreements between appellée. and railroad operating crafts. In Barker v. Southern Pacific Co., 9 Cir., 1954, 214 F.2d 918 and in Breeland v. Southern Pacific Co., 9 Cir., 1955, 231 F.2d 576, we held that the suing employees, having elected to advantage themselves of the administrative procedures set out in the applicable collective bargaining agreements, and having failed to,timely, pursue them to finality, thereby debarred themselves from maintaining a common law action for damages for breach of contract.

This is a similar case. It is true that action.in the District Court is alternative, but only if the administrative remedies are pursued to conclusion according to the. agreement or not pursued at all. 1

The record below shows that appellant did invoke the agreement’s administrative procedures, but abandoned them in midstream. .

Hence he failed to meet the condition precedent required for the lawful commencement of the action below.

= JTor ,this reason, and for the reasons stated by District Judge Solomon in his opinion beloWi 139 F.Supp. 783, the judgment of the District Court is

Affirmed.

1

. Transcontinental Air v. Koppel, 1953, 345 U.S. 653, 73 S.Ct. 906, 97 L.Ed. 1325.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

This is the third of a series of three recent cases in which employees of appellee have claimed damages in the United States District Courts for alleged wrongful discharge in violation of collective bargaining agreements between appellée. and railroad operating crafts. In Barker v. Southern Pacific Co., 9 Cir., 1954, 214 F.2d 918 and in Breeland v. Southern Pacific Co., 9 Cir., 1955, 231 F.2d 576, we held that the suing employees, having elected to advantage themselves of the administrative procedures set out in the applicable collective bargaining agreements, and having failed to,timely, pursue them to finality, thereby debarred themselves from maintaining a common law action for damages for breach of contract.

This is a similar case. It is true that action.in the District Court is alternative, but only if the administrative remedies are pursued to conclusion according to the. agreement or not pursued at all. 1

The record below shows that appellant did invoke the agreement’s administrative procedures, but abandoned them in midstream. .

Hence he failed to meet the condition precedent required for the lawful commencement of the action below.

= JTor ,this reason, and for the reasons stated by District Judge Solomon in his opinion beloWi 139 F.Supp. 783, the judgment of the District Court is

Affirmed.

1

. Transcontinental Air v. Koppel, 1953, 345 U.S. 653, 73 S.Ct. 906, 97 L.Ed. 1325.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

232 F.2d 707, 37 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2739, 1956 U.S. App. LEXIS 4497, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/george-peoples-v-southern-pacific-company-a-corporation-ca9-1956.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack