Oil, Chemical & Atomic Workers International Union, Local 4-447 v. American Cyanamid Company

546 F.2d 1144, 94 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 3066, 1977 U.S. App. LEXIS 10117
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
DecidedFebruary 9, 1977
Docket76-2346
StatusPublished
Cited by25 cases

This text of 546 F.2d 1144 (Oil, Chemical & Atomic Workers International Union, Local 4-447 v. American Cyanamid Company) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Oil, Chemical & Atomic Workers International Union, Local 4-447 v. American Cyanamid Company, 546 F.2d 1144, 94 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 3066, 1977 U.S. App. LEXIS 10117 (5th Cir. 1977).

Opinion

GODBOLD, Circuit Judge:

The union was awarded a judgment under § 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 185 et seq. for payment of unpaid vacation benefits under a collective bargaining agreement. The only issue is whether the court erred in declining to award pre-judgment interest (post-judgment interest was awarded).

The general federal rule is that in the absence of a statutory provision the award of pre-judgment interest is in the discretion of the court. Wolf v. Frank, 477 F.2d 467 (CA 5, 1973) (§ 10b-5 securities case); Dennis v. Central Gulf Steamship, 453 F.2d 137 (CA 5, 1972) (admiralty); Weeks v. Alonzo Cothron, 493 F.2d 538 (CA 5, 1974) (longshoremen and harbor workers); Solomon v. Warren, 540 F.2d 777 (CA 5, 1976) (DOHSA). The LMRA contains no explicit provision. We apply the general rule to this case. The Second Circuit has done the same. Lodges 743 and 1746 v. United Aircraft Corp., 534 F.2d 422 (CA 2, 1975).

No basis is shown for holding that the district judge abused his discretion other than the contention that plaintiffs should be given pre-judgment interest to make them whole. This reason would apply with respect to any § 301 suit in which plaintiff successfully sues for money allegedly due under the terms of a collective bargaining agreement. This is not alone sufficient basis for a finding of abuse of discretion.

AFFIRMED.

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

Related

Moser v. Bank of Tyler (In re Loggins)
513 B.R. 682 (E.D. Texas, 2014)
Millcraft-SMS Services, LLC v. United Steel Workers
346 F. Supp. 2d 1176 (N.D. Alabama, 2004)
Rau v. Apple-Rio Management Co., Inc.
85 F. Supp. 2d 1344 (N.D. Georgia, 1999)
Chrysler Motors Corporation v. International Union
959 F.2d 685 (Seventh Circuit, 1992)
Kern Oil & Refining Co. v. Tenneco Oil Co.
868 F.2d 1279 (Temporary Emergency Court of Appeals, 1989)
Calderon v. Presidio Valley Farmers Ass'n
863 F.2d 384 (Fifth Circuit, 1989)
National Railroad Passenger Corp. v. New Castle County
636 F. Supp. 1482 (D. Delaware, 1986)
Bricklayers' Pension Trust Fund v. Taiariol
671 F.2d 988 (Sixth Circuit, 1982)
Nedd v. United Mine Workers of America
488 F. Supp. 1208 (M.D. Pennsylvania, 1980)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
546 F.2d 1144, 94 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 3066, 1977 U.S. App. LEXIS 10117, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/oil-chemical-atomic-workers-international-union-local-4-447-v-american-ca5-1977.