Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-01812/USCOURTS-ca8-04-01812-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 720
Nature of Suit: Labor Management Relations Act
Cause of Action: 

---

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-1812

___________

Richard Kurtzeborn, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States 

v. * District Court for the Eastern

* District of Missouri.

Allied Gear and Machine Co., Inc.; *

International Association of Machinists * [UNPUBLISHED]

and Aerospace Workers, District No. 9, *

*

Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: January 12, 2005

Filed: January 18, 2005

___________

Before WOLLMAN, McMILLIAN, and FAGG, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

After Richard Kurtzeborn, a union employee of Allied Gear and Machine Co.,

Inc., was laid off, he filed a grievance asserting his discharge violated the terms of the

collective bargaining agreement (CBA) because more junior employees were

retained. Kurtzeborn’s grievance was denied, and Kurtzeborn’s union declined to

pursue the grievance to arbitration. Kurtzeborn then brought this action against

Allied Gear asserting breach of the CBA and against the union for breach of its duty

Appellate Case: 04-1812 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/18/2005 Entry ID: 1855958 
*

The Honorable Catherine D. Perry, United States District Judge for the Eastern

District of Missouri. 

-2-

of fair representation. The district court*

 granted summary judgment to Allied Gear

and the union, concluding Allied Gear complied with the seniority provisions of the

CBA when laying off Kurtzeborn and thus the union did not breach its duty of fair

representation. 

On appeal, Kurtzeborn contends summary judgment is improper because there

is a genuine issue of material fact–whether Allied Gear breached the CBA when it

laid him off. Having carefully reviewed the parties’ briefs, the record, and the

applicable law, we conclude the district court properly granted summary judgment to

Allied Gear and the union. Because we have nothing to add to the district court’s

explanation, we affirm on the basis of the district court’s memorandum and order.

See 8th Cir. 47B. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 04-1812 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/18/2005 Entry ID: 1855958