West v. Conrail

Background

Thomas West, an airline worker, sued his employer, his union, and a union representative in a "hybrid" case under the Railway Labor Act. He alleged the employer breached the collective-bargaining agreement and the union breached its duty of fair representation. He learned of the union breach on March 25, 1984, filed a federal complaint on September 24, 1984, but the summonses and complaints were mailed October 10, 1984 and acknowledgments of service arrived between October 12 and November 1, 1984. The District Court granted summary judgment because service did not occur within the six-month period in section 10(b), and the Court of Appeals affirmed.

Reasoning

The central question was whether borrowing the six-month limit from section 10(b) also requires formal service to be completed within six months. The Court said DelCostello intended only to borrow the time limit, not the borrowed statute’s procedural service rules. It held that a federal case is "commenced" under Rule 3 when the complaint is filed, and filing within the six-month period satisfies the borrowed limitation. Rule 4 still governs how and when defendants are served (service is normally required within 120 days), but delayed service does not automatically bar a claim if the filing was timely.

Real world impact

The decision means employees bringing similar hybrid suits can preserve claims by filing within six months even if formal service happens later. The Court reversed the appeals court and remanded the case for further proceedings. This decision resolves a timing rule and is procedural, not a final ruling on the merits of the employment claims.