Rutherford v. Judge & Dolph Ltd.

Dist. Ct. did not err in dismissing plaintiffs-union employees’ action under section 301 of Labor-Management Relations Act alleging that their terminations violated terms of collective bargaining agreement (CBA). At time of terminations, CBA had been terminated via timely notice to terminate CBA given by union to employer, and thus plaintiffs could not establish violation under LMRA. Moreover, Dist. Ct. lacked jurisdiction to consider plaintiffs’ claim that defendant-union violated its duty of fair representation for attempting to settle plaintiffs’ grievances against their employer for unsatisfactory proffered sums where LMRA excludes claims by employees against their union in absence of allegation that union itself violated CBA.