C. R. Hayes et al., Appellants, v. Chauffeurs, Teamsters & Helpers, Local 391, Affiliated Withinternational Brotherhood of Teamsters,chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers Ofamerica, Appellee, 460 F.2d 531 (4th Cir. 1972)
Annotate this CaseJohn E. Hall, North Wilkesboro, N. C. (McElwee & Hall, North Wilkesboro, N. C., on brief), for appellants.
Hugh J. Beins, Washington, D. C. (Renn Drum and Drum, Liner & Redden, Winston-Salem, N. C., on brief), for appellee.
Before HAYNSWORTH, Chief Judge, BOREMAN, Senior Circuit Judge, and CRAVEN, Circuit Judge.
PER CURIAM:
Involved in this appeal is an alleged breach by the defendant union (appellee) of its duty to fairly represent the plaintiffs (appellants) who were members of the union.1
The district court, sitting without a jury, heard evidence, considered proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law and the briefs of the parties, made extensive findings of fact, stated its conclusions of law and held that the plaintiffs had failed to meet their burden of proving that the defendant union had in any manner breached its duty of fair representation in handling a dispute resulting from a change of operations of the plaintiffs' employer.
Upon consideration of the record, the briefs and oral arguments of counsel we find no error and affirm on the memorandum decision of the district court.
Affirmed.
Jurisdiction of the district court was invoked under section 301(a) of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947, as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 185(a)
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
