Court Opinion

ID: 9478677
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 06:54:44.174266+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:46:33.111476
License: Public Domain

Johnson, Circuit Judge,
concurring:
I agree with the majority that O.C.G.A. § 9-3-24 provides the proper limitations period under Georgia law for plaintiffs’ third-party beneficiary claims. I differ somewhat because I read the complaints as asserting both duty of fair representation claims and third-party beneficiary claims. *1386The result is the same, however, regardless of whether the plaintiffs included duty of fair representation claims or hybrid 301 claims in their complaints. The reasoning behind the Supreme Court’s decision in Del-Costello v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, 462 U.S. 151, 167-69 & n. 19, 103 S.Ct. 2281, 2292-93 & n. 19, 76 L.Ed.2d 476 (1983), holding that both halves of a hybrid 301 claim are governed by a single limitations period, does not apply in this situation. In a hybrid 301 claim, the plaintiff must prove both that the union breached its duty of fair representation and that the employer breached the collective bargaining agreement. Hines v. Anchor Motor Freight, 424 U.S. 554, 96 S.Ct. 1048, 47 L.Ed.2d 231 (1976). In contrast, in this case, plaintiffs’ claims that the union breached duties it assumed in the collective bargaining agreement for the benefit of its members are independent of any other claims. They are not single elements of larger claims, but are themselves separate claims upon which relief can be granted. As such, although the duty of fair representation claims are barred by a six-month statute of limitations, Erkins v. United Steelworkers of America, 723 F.2d 837 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 467 U.S. 1243, 104 S.Ct. 3517, 82 L.Ed.2d 825 (1984), the third-party beneficiary claims are governed by O.C.G.A. § 9-3-24’s limitations period. See Hechler v. IBEW, 834 F.2d 942 (11th Cir.1987) (“Hechler III”).