Adams v. Ford Motor Co.

2 Citing cases

  1. Berning v. General Motors Corporation

    CIVIL NO. 1:06cv87 (N.D. Ind. Oct. 29, 2007)

    In Hammer v. UAW, Local Union No. 550, 178 F.3d at 858 and Sosbe v. Delco Electronics Division of General Motors, 830 F.2d at 86 (7th Cir. 1987), the Seventh Circuit followed its holding in Miller by again requiring exhaustion of UAW internal procedures under UAW-negotiated reinstatement of grievances agreements. See also, Garner v. International Union, UAW, 800 F. Supp. 706, 711 (S.D. Ind. 1991) (exhaustion of UAW internal remedies required where internal procedures can result in reactivation of grievances); Adams v. Ford Motor Co., 670 F. Supp. 237 (N.D. Ill. 1987), aff'd 852 F.2d 570 (7th Cir. 1988). While the Seventh Circuit requires the trial court to exercise its discretion in deciding whether exhaustion of internal union remedies is required in a particular case, it places the burden on plaintiff to set forth facts "showing that the intra-union procedures are inadequate under Clayton."

  2. Merk v. Jewel Food Stores Division

    702 F. Supp. 1391 (N.D. Ill. 1988)   Cited 9 times

    Even if excused from the remedies outlined in the collective bargaining agreement, an employee must exhaust all intra-union remedies before seeking relief in a § 301 action unless those procedures "would be inadequate either to reactivate the employee's grievance or to award him the full relief he seeks under § 301." Clayton v. International Union, 451 U.S. 679, 690, 101 S.Ct. 2088, 2095, 68 L.Ed.2d 538 (1981); Adams v. Budd Co., 846 F.2d 428, 432 (7th Cir. 1988); Adams v. Ford Motor Co., 670 F. Supp. 237, 238 (N.D.Ill. 1987), aff'd, 852 F.2d 570 (7th Cir. 1988). Jewel has not demonstrated that any intra-union remedies are available to the plaintiffs.