So we have the Framers of the Constitution using certain parts of British government to model the new government of the United States. This amendment was put into place to preserve the right of civil cases to be heard by a jury, allowing the jury to "check" the judge, and leaving the judge to pass down how the law applies and how it is implied in the case at hand. Opinions of the judge are mute in the instance of the case at hand. This is a great idea in that a civil suit heard in a court where the plaintiff knows the judge or others of influence cannot be over weighted due to the fact that the jury is the deciding factor.
Court Case
McLean Trucking Corporation and the defendant/petitioner union, Chauffeurs, Teamsters, and Helpers Local No. 391, were parties to a collective bargaining agreement which governed employment at McLean. The plaintiffs/respondents in this matter were Union members employed as truck drivers by McLean. In 1982, McLean began to shut down some of its terminals and reorganizing others. The company transferred plaintiffs to its terminal in Winston-Salem, North Carolina, and granted them special seniority rights over inactive employees at that terminal who had been temporarily laid off.
After working at Winston-Salem for six weeks, the plaintiffs were alternately laid off and recalled several times. Some of the laid off truckers were stripped of their special seniority rights. The plaintiffs filed a grievance with the union, alleging that McLean had breached the collective bargaining agreement by giving inactive employees preference over them. The grievance committee ordered McLean to recall the plaintiffs and lay off the inactive drivers who had been recalled, and to recognize plaintiffs’ special seniority rights until the inactive employees were recalled properly. McLean obeyed the order of the grievance committee at first, but then recalled the inactive employees, causing them to gain seniority status over the plaintiffs. In the next round of layoffs, this meant that the plaintiffs were laid off first. Plaintiffs then filed another grievance with the union, alleging that McLean’s actions were intended to circumvent the grievance committee’s initial order. But the grievance committee held that McLean had acted legitimately. This pattern of temporary layoffs and recalls continued, prompting plaintiffs to file another grievance, but the Union did not refer the third grievance to a grievance committee, instead ruling that the relevant issues had already been decided.
In July 1983, plaintiffs brought suit against both the Union and McLean in the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, alleging that McLean had violated the collective bargaining agreement in violation of the Labor Management Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 185, and alleging that the Union had breached its duty of fair representation. Plaintiffs requested a permanent injunction requiring the defendants to restore their seniority and cease their illegal activity. They further requested compensatory damages for lost wages and health benefits. McLean filed for bankruptcy in 1986, and all the claims against it were voluntarily dismissed.
Plaintiffs had requested a jury trial in their pleadings, but the Union moved to strike the demand for a jury trial, on the grounds that the no right to a jury trial exists in a duty of fair representation suit. The District Court denied the defendant’s motion to strike, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed, holding that the Seventh Amendment entitled the plaintiffs to a jury trial on their claims for monetary damages.
Reaction
In this case we see a lot of finger pointing, and looking for ways around different topics whether it be by the Union, the employer, or both. In the end we see that the Union did not want to allow the hearing of the case by a jury as it was citing the case being a misrepresentation case. The Supreme Court ruled that because of the monetary damages involved the case was one of "common law" and that it should be held by a jury if requested. I think this is a perfect example of how the justice system should work as the petitioners should have their case heard by the jury in that a judge cannot weigh on everything personal about the decisions of the Union and employer regarded as legal or not.
Video
As we can see here the fact that there is a civil trial which is being deliberated by a jury is in place against Kid Rock and the plaintiff for damages incurred in a fight at a Waffle House. What is funny is that the fight was three years prior to the civil case and that the damages for pain and suffering were not limited. It is just as Kid Rock says at the end of the clip if this were any regular guy, there would be no civil trial, but under the monetary circumstances involved there is. My question is, couldn't you just rent the waffle house with no reason to have others there? Along the same lines did the plaintiff come in after, if so why did he sit RIGHT behind the other table in a restaurant void of people. Oh well, that's for the jury to decide, as is the right of the accused.
No comments:
Post a Comment