Skip to main content

Teamsters Local Union No. 61 v. United Parcel Service, Inc.

D.C. CircuitDecember 7, 2001No. 00-7239Cited 50 times
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Judge(s)
Henderson, Randolph, Rogers
Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
Published
Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
appeal

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Claim Types

Wrongful Termination

Outcome

The appellate court affirmed summary judgment in favor of UPS, holding that the arbitration committee's decisions to proceed to merits and uphold Thompson's discharge were valid despite union members' absence, as the impartial arbitrator had authority to decide procedural matters and the committee could rule on the merits without full union representation.

What This Ruling Means

Based on the limited information provided, here's what we know about this employment case: **What Happened:** This case involved a dispute between Teamsters Local Union No. 61 and United Parcel Service (UPS). The specific details of what triggered the disagreement are not available in the provided information, but it was an employment-related matter that required court intervention. **What the Court Decided:** The court's final decision in this case is not specified in the available information. The case was filed in the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in December 2001, but the outcome remains unclear from these records. **Why This Matters for Workers:** Without knowing the specific issues or outcome, it's difficult to determine the exact implications for workers. However, cases involving major unions like the Teamsters and large employers like UPS often set important precedents for workplace rights, collective bargaining, or employment practices. These types of disputes typically address issues that affect many workers, such as working conditions, benefits, or union representation rights. For a complete understanding of how this case might affect workers, more details about the specific claims and court decision would be needed.

This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.

Browse Related

Facing something similar at work?

Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.

This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.

See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.