Chauffers Local, 391 v. Terry 494 U.S. 558, 110 S. Ct. 1339, 108 L.Ed. 2d 519 (1990) The Chauffers Union was involved in a collective bargaining agreement with McLean Trucking. McLean began laying people off, and some of the union workers filed complaints with Chauffers. Chauffers filed grievances on two occasions, but declined to do it on the third occasion, claiming the issue had been settled. Terry, and other union workers sued McLean for breaching the collective bargaining agreement, and Chauffers for violating its duty of fair representation. McLean filed for bankruptcy and went out of business, thereby ending the suit against them. Chauffers made a motion to strike the jury (aka have a judge decide the case, not a jury) on the grounds that no right to a jury exists in a duty of fair representation suit. The Trial Court denied the motion, Chauffers appealed. The Appellate Court affirmed. Chauffers appealed. The Appellate Court found that the 7th Amendment entitled the union workers to a trial on their claim for monetary relief. The US Supreme Court affirmed. The US Supreme Court noted that suit was being brought under the National Labor Relations Act, which does not expressly create the duty of fair representation. The Court found that the 7th Amendment preserves the right to a trial by jury in suits at common law. The definition of a suit at common law is one where legal rights are to be ascertained and determined, in contradistinction to those where equitable rights alone are recognized and equitable remedies are administered. Aka, where legal rights are at stake. The Court looked to 18th Century English Common Law to try to see if a duty for fair representation suit was legal or equitable. Collective bargaining agreements were illegal in 18th Century England. Chauffers argued that this was similar to a trust beneficiary suing a trustee for breach of fiduciary duty, which was an equity case. The union workers argued that this was similar to suing a lawyer for legal malpractice, which was a suit at law. The Court felt that the case involved both equitable and legal issues. The Court then looked to see if the remedy sought would have been considered legal or equitable back in 18th Century England, and decided that it was legal. The Court found that since the case met both requirements of the 7th Amendment, the union workers were entitled to a trial by jury.