Citation network
Bowen Vs. Usps
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jan 11, 1983
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.
- 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
- Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
- Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
- Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account
- Distinguished
-
U.S. 212 (1983) U.S. Supreme Court Bowen v. USPSSearch
-
U.S. 212 (1983) Bowen v. UnitedSearch
-
increased by the Union's breach of its duty of fair representation, apportionment of the damages was required. Vaca v. SipesSearch
-
incentive for the union to process its members' claims where warranted. Pp. 459 U. S. 224 -228. (d) Czosek v. O'MaraSearch
-
fair representation. I On February 21, 1976, following an altercation with another employee, petitioner Charles V. BowenSearch
-
of the Service exclusively. Hence, no portion of the deprivations . . . was chargeable to the Union. Cf. Vaca v. SipesSearch
-
the undisputed amount of his damages. II In Vaca v. SipesSearch
-
In Republic Steel Corp. v. MaddoxSearch
-
make the employer alone liable for the consequences of the union's breach of duty. Page 459 U. S. 223 Hines v. AnchorSearch
-
Steelworkers v. WarriorSearch
-
agreement, the Court has applied an evolving federal common law grounded in national labor policy. See Steelworkers v. AmericanSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
Textile Workers v. LincolnSearch
-
Fundamental to federal labor policy is the grievance procedure. See John Wiley & Sons, Inc. v. LivingstonSearch
-
See Clayton v. AutomobileSearch
-
clause. See Republic Steel, 379 U.S. at 379 U. S. 653 . III The Union contends that Czosek v. O'MaraSearch
-
to seek full redress from an administrative board, the union still had a duty to represent them fairly. See Conley v. GibsonSearch
-
Only one case cited by the dissent has declined to apportion damages after considering the issue fully. See Seymour v. OlinSearch
-
Milstead v. InternationalSearch
-
Union 957, 649 F.2d 395, 396 (CA6 1981) (finding that damages may not be apportioned on the basis of St. Clair v. LocalSearch
-
Some courts have not apportioned damages, but have articulated apparently conflicting rationales. See Wyatt v. InterstateSearch
-
De Arroyo v. SindicatoSearch
-
Other cases have recognized that damages should be apportioned between the union and the employer. See Smart v. EllisSearch
-
Harrison v. ChryslerSearch
-
Ruzicka v. GeneralSearch
-
St. Clair v. LocalSearch
-
The Court had previously held, in Smith v. EveningSearch
-
Requiring the union to pay its share of the damages is consistent with the interests recognized in Electrical Workers v. FoustSearch
-
following Vaca and Czosek, the Court has not had occasion to address the question presented here. In Hines v. AnchorSearch
-
that a union may not be held liable for punitive damages -- is consistent with our holding here. Finally, in Clayton v. AutomobileSearch
-
the following reasons, I believe that the employer should be primarily liable for all backpay. I In Smith v. EveningSearch
-
action against his employer for any backpay whatsoever. This is because Republic Steel Corp. v. MaddoxSearch
-
of disputes arising over the interpretation and implementation of collective bargaining agreements. See Clayton v. AutomobileSearch
-
we considered, in Vaca v. SipesSearch
-
Id. at 386 U. S. 197 . In Hines v. AnchorSearch
-
We considered this question in Czosek v. O'MaraSearch
-
may sometimes only have de minimis liability, and we unanimously acknowledged this fact in Electrical Worker v. FoustSearch
-
Seymour v. OlinSearch
-
fairly and impartially. Ford Motor Co. v. HuffmanSearch
-
Wallace Corp. v. NLRBSearch
-
Steele v. LouisvilleSearch
-
United Mine Workers Health & Retirement Funds v. RobinsonSearch
-
U. S. 562 , 455 U. S. 576 (1982). See also Carbon Fuel Co. v. MineSearch
-
Porter Co. v. NLRBSearch
-
is able to collect in full from the primary obligor, the trustee should not be monetarily liable. See, e.g., Pollard v. PollardSearch
-
The Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit correctly applied a similar rule in the labor context in Harrison v. UnitedSearch
-
from the employer but for the union's misconduct. Page 459 U. S. 244 530 F.2d at 562. See also Nedd v. UnitedSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial