A Sensible Approach to Calming Waters Roiled by Cross-Sanctions Motions

Both the Union and the employer in Teamsters Local Union No. 473 v. Beacon Journal Publishing Co., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 78758 (N.D. Ohio Aug. 6, 2008), moved for sanctions again one another. The employer’s motion was denied for failure to satisfy the 21-day safe harbor; the Union didn’t make that mistake. Did it make sense to imposed sanctions on one of two parties to a long-term relationship that required them to work together in the future? Held, no.

The Union's motion for sanctions against Beacon Journal arguably has merit. However, the parties in this litigation are both significant institutions with a long-term relationship. It is the Court's view that the imposition of sanctions is not conducive to a relationship that benefits both parties. Therefore, the Court declines to exercise its discretion to award sanctions against Beacon Journal. Union's motion for Rule 11 sanctions is denied.

It is comforting to know that there are companies with a future long enough to worry about long-term relationships.

Share this article:

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Email

Recent Posts

Archives