Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
  • Fred E. Weisgal and Bernard W. Rubenstein, Baltimore, Md., for appellants. Jerry D. Anker, Washington, D.C. (Arthur J. Goldberg, David E. Feller, Washington, D.C., Jacob J. Edelman, and Marshall A. Levin, Baltimore, Md., on the brief), for United Steelworkers of America, appellee. Ralph L. McAfee, New York City (H. Vernon Eney, Baltimore, Md., John H. Morse, New York City, Russell R. Reno, Jr., Venable, Baetjer Howard, Baltimore, Md., Thomas D. Barr, Frank Cummings, and Cravath, Swaine Moore, New York City, on the brief), for Bethlehem Steel Co., appellee.
Judges
  • Simon E. Sobeloff
  • Clement Furman Haynsworth
  • Herbert Stephenson Boreman
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Click here to upload
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
  • Fred E. Weisgal and Bernard W. Rubenstein, Baltimore, Md., for appellants. Jerry D. Anker, Washington, D.C. (Arthur J. Goldberg, David E. Feller, Washington, D.C., Jacob J. Edelman, and Marshall A. Levin, Baltimore, Md., on the brief), for United Steelworkers of America, appellee. Ralph L. McAfee, New York City (H. Vernon Eney, Baltimore, Md., John H. Morse, New York City, Russell R. Reno, Jr., Venable, Baetjer Howard, Baltimore, Md., Thomas D. Barr, Frank Cummings, and Cravath, Swaine Moore, New York City, on the brief), for Bethlehem Steel Co., appellee.
Judges
  • Simon E. Sobeloff
  • Clement Furman Haynsworth
  • Herbert Stephenson Boreman
See more information ...
Smart Summary

Aaron OSTROFSKY, Joseph Henderson, William H. Wood and Benjamin M. Fino, Appellants, v. UNITED STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA, A.F.L.-C.I.O., and United Steelworkers of America, Local Unions Nos. 2609 and 2610, and Bethlehem Steel Company, Appellees.

PER CURIAM.

For the reason that the plaintiffs utterly failed to cooperate with the union, as clearly shown in the opinion of the District Court, 171 F. Supp. 782, we think the union was neither unreasonable nor arbitrary in refusing to prosecute the grievances of the plaintiffs. Consequently, no right of action has accrued to them against the union or against their former employer.

Affirmed.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.
Try AI Pro free for 7 days Upgrade to AI Pro

Comments

OSTROFSKY v. UNITED STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA
(Jan 7, 1960)