Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-88-02724/USCOURTS-ca10-88-02724-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 720
Nature of Suit: Labor Management Relations Act
Cause of Action: 

---

FI LED 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Ut1ited Scates Court of Appeals 

Tf'nth Circuit 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT JAN 2 - 1990 

RUSSELL L. PETERSON, JR., 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

ABF FREIGHT SYSTEM, INC., an Arkansas 

corporation, 

Defendant-Appellee, 

and 

INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF 

TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN, 

AND HELPERS OF AMERICA; and PLAN 

ADMINISTRATOR, WESTERN CONFERENCE OF 

TEAMSTERS PENSION TRUST FUND, 

Defendants. 

&OBERT L. HOECKER 

) Clerk 

) 

) 

) 

) No. 88-2724 

) (D.C. No. 87-C-835W) 

) (D. Utah) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before MOORE, BARRETT, and BRORBY, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall 

not be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, 

except for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of 

the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 

36.3. 

Appellate Case: 88-2724 Document: 01019958604 Date Filed: 01/02/1990 Page: 1 
assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. 

submitted without oral argument. 

The case is therefore ordered 

Plaintiff-appellant appeals the district court's order of 

October 14, 1988, entering summary judgment in favor of 

defendant-appellee ABF Freight System, Inc., (ABF) and against 

plaintiff. Plaintiff, a truck driver, instituted the underlying 

action alleging that ABF terminated him in violation of the 

collective bargaining agreement between his union and ABF. 

Specifically, plaintiff alleged that he was denied due process and 

was retaliated against for his union activities and his 

"furtherance of safety and work conditions." Plaintiff also 

asserted a claim against the international union for failure to 

fairly represent him in the grievance proceedings. 1 In addition, 

plaintiff alleged that ABF conspired with certain of its employees 

to deprive him of his employment, and that defendants violated the 

Employees Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 

29 U.S.C. §§ 1001-1461, by discharging plaintiff for the purpose 

of depriving him of certain retirement benefits and by failing to 

provide him with requested benefits information. 

Plaintiff raises six issues on appeal: (1) whether the trial 

court erred in denying plaintiff's motion for a continuance of the 

hearing on the motion for summary judgment; (2) whether the trial 

court erred in granting summary judgment when "just cause" is 

1 The parties stipulated to a dismissal of the union 

action on June 30, 1988. 

2 

from the 

Appellate Case: 88-2724 Document: 01019958604 Date Filed: 01/02/1990 Page: 2 
required for an employer to discharge an employee under the 

collective bargaining agreement; (3) whether t he trial court erred 

in granting summary judgment when the proper grievance procedures 

allegedly were not followed; (4) whether the trial court's 

findings of undisputed facts were clearly erroneous; (5) whether 

ABF's management personnel brought about plaintiff's discharge so 

as to deprive him of pension benefits in violation of ERISA; and 

(6) whether genuine issues of material fact existed so as to 

preclude the entry of summary judgment. 

We review the district court's denial of plaintiff's request 

for a continuance under an abuse of discretion standard and will 

not reverse the decision "unless we conclude that the denial was 

arbitrary or unreasonable and materially prejudiced the 

appellant." United States v. West, 828 F.2d 1468, 1469 (10th Cir. 

1987). 

The record shows that ABF filed its motion for summary 

judgment on June 29, 1988. On August 9, 1988, the court ordered 

plaintiff's counsel to respond to the motion or show cause why the 

action should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. 

Plaintiff's lead counsel, who was from New Jersey, did not file 

her response to the motion until September 13, 1988. Although the 

record does not so reflect, counsel avers in a certificate 

attached to her brief on appeal that the court gave her an oral 

extension of time to file her response. 

The summary judgment motion recited that ABF desired oral 

argument. Accordingly, a 

October 4, 1988, pursuant 

hearing on 

to notice 

3 

the 

of 

motion was set for 

September 19, 1988, 

Appellate Case: 88-2724 Document: 01019958604 Date Filed: 01/02/1990 Page: 3 
prepared by ABF's counsel. On the morning of the hearing, 

plaintiff's local counsel appeared but his lead counsel did not. 

Local counsel then moved the court for a continuance on the 

grounds that lead counsel was out of the country and local counsel 

was not fully prepared for the hearing. The court denied the 

motion, noting that lead counsel had failed to comply with the 

court's timetables. Local counsel argued the motion on behalf of 

plaintiff, and at the conclusion of the hearing, the court took 

the matter under advisement. The court issued its written 

memorandum and order ten days later. 

Under the circumstances, we conclude that the court did not 

abuse its discretion in denying plaintiff's motion for a 

continuance. The hearing on summary judgment had been set, 

defense counsel appeared, prepared to argue the motion, and only 

then did plaintiff's counsel move for a continuance. Lead counsel 

had notice from ABF's motion that it desired argument on the 

motion, yet the record does not reflect that she made any attempt 

to inform the court or other counsel that she was leaving the 

country for a month immediately after filing her response to the 

motion. Moreover, counsel has not shown how her absence from the 

hearing prejudiced plaintiff in any respect. 

We review the court's ruling on the merits of the motion for 

summary judgment de novo, applying the same standard as the 

district court. Osgood v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 848 

F.2d 141, 143 (10th Cir. 1988). 

Plaintiff was discharged by ABF on June 2, 1985, for carrying 

an unauthorized passenger in his truck while on duty. Such 

4 

Appellate Case: 88-2724 Document: 01019958604 Date Filed: 01/02/1990 Page: 4 
conduct is expressly prohibited under Article 13 of the National 

Master Freight Agreement (NMFA}, which, together with the Western 

States Area Supplemental Agreement (WSASA), formed the collective 

bargaining agreement under which the parties operated. Plaintiff 

admits that he was carrying an unauthorized passenger, but 

contends that such conduct does not constitute ''just cause" for 

discharge as required by Art. 46, § 1 of the WSASA. 

The record shows that the local union protested plaintiff's 

discharge through the Joint State Committee (JSC} and the Joint 

Western Area Committee (JWAC} in accordance with the grievance 

procedures set forth in Article 45 of the WSASA. Pursuant to 

Art. 45, § l(b}, a decision by a majority vote of the JWAC 

settling a dispute is "final and binding on both parties and the 

employee(s} involved, with no further appeal." 

Plaintiff concedes that he cannot attack and must be bound by 

the decision of the JWAC unless he can show that the grievance 

procedure itself was flawed. See Griesmann v. Chemical Leaman 

Tank Lines, Inc., 776 F.2d 66, 73 (3d Cir. 1985}. One argument 

that plaintiff makes is that ABF and the union did not follow the 

proper grievance procedures because the dispute should have gone 

to an impartial umpire rather than the JWAC after the JSC became 

deadlocked. Our reading of Article 45 of the WSASA leads us to 

conclude that plaintiff's argument is without merit; the dispute 

properly went to the JWAC after the JSC reached a deadlock. 

Plaintiff also argues that the grievance procedures were 

flawed because neither the JSC nor the JWAC made an express 

finding of "just cause," thus rendering the affirmance of 

5 

Appellate Case: 88-2724 Document: 01019958604 Date Filed: 01/02/1990 Page: 5 
plaintiff's discharge "capricious and dishonest." We are not 

persuaded by this argument, especially in light of the provisions 

of Art. 46, § 1 of the WSASA indicating that an employee can be 

suspended or discharged without prior notice for carrying an 

unauthorized passenger while on duty. 

Additionally, plaintiff argues that the union did not fairly 

represent him in the grievance proceedings, thereby negating the 

binding authority of the JWAC's decision. See Hines v. Anchor 

Motor Freight, Inc., 424 U.S. 554, 567 (1976). In order to 

establish that the union breached its duty of fair representation, 

plaintiff must show that the union's actions were "arbitrary, 

discriminatory, or in bad faith." Vaca v. Sipes, 386 U.S. 171, 

190 (1967). Plaintiff has failed to make a sufficient showing to 

create a genuine issue of material fact concerning the union's 

representation. Therefore, we conclude that the district court 

did not err in entering summary judgment against plaintiff on the 

first three counts of the amended complaint. 

Likewise, we conclude that the lower court properly entered 

summary judgment against plaintiff on his fourth claim, which 

alleged a violation of ERISA. Pursuant to 29 u.s.c. § 1140, the 

discharge of a participant in an employee benefit plan "for the 

purpose of interfering with the attainment of any right to which 

such participant may become entitled under the plan" is unlawful. 

Furthermore, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 1025, the administrator of an 

employee benefit plan has a duty to provide certain information to 

plan participants when requested. 

6 

Appellate Case: 88-2724 Document: 01019958604 Date Filed: 01/02/1990 Page: 6 
' . 

ABF filed affidavits with its motion for summary judgment 

that refuted plaintiff's allegation that ABF discharged him to 

prevent him from obtaining additional retirement benefits he would 

accrue upon completing twenty years of service and plaintiff's 

allegation that he was not provided requested information about 

his benefits. Plaintiff did not present any evidence to 

contradict the affidavits or otherwise establish a genuine issue 

of material fact with respect to his ERISA claim. Therefore, the 

claim could not survive summary judgment. 

We conclude that the district court properly entered summary 

judgment against plaintiff on all claims and, therefore, AFFIRM 

the judgment of the United States District Court for the District 

of Utah for substantially the reasons set forth in its order of 

October 14, 1988. 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

PER CURIAM 

7 

Appellate Case: 88-2724 Document: 01019958604 Date Filed: 01/02/1990 Page: 7