Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca9-13-35095/USCOURTS-ca9-13-35095-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 790
Nature of Suit: Other Labor Litigation
Cause of Action: 

---

FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF

CARPENTERS AND JOINERS OF

AMERICA; BUTCH PARKER; SCOTT

FLANNERY; WILLIAM CRAWFORD;

TRUMAN JORDAN,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v.

METAL TRADES DEPARTMENT, AFLCIO; HANFORD ATOMIC METAL

TRADES COUNCIL,

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 13-35095

D.C. No.

2:11-cv-05159-

TOR

OPINION

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Washington

Thomas O. Rice, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted

May 12, 2014—Seattle, Washington

Filed October 28, 2014

Before: Diarmuid F. O’Scannlain, Andrew J. Kleinfeld,

and Marsha S. Berzon, Circuit Judges.

Opinion by Judge O’Scannlain

 Case: 13-35095, 10/28/2014, ID: 9292160, DktEntry: 35-1, Page 1 of 15
2 CARPENTERS V. METAL TRADES

SUMMARY*

Labor Law

The panel affirmed the district court’s dismissal of the

United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America’s

action alleging that the Metal Trades Department, AFL-CIO,

violated the federal duty of fair representation.

The Carpenters, a labor union, alleged that, as part of a

campaign to force it to reaffiliate, the Building and

Construction Trades Department, AFL-CIO, an umbrella

labor organization, convinced the Metal Trades to expel the

Carpenters from its membership. The Carpenters alleged that

the Metal Trades waged a campaign against Carpenters

members that included stripping them of their preferential

positions as union stewards solely because they were

members of the Carpenters.

The panel held that the Carpenters failed to state a claim

for breach of the duty of fair representation because this duty

does not forbid consideration of union affiliation in the

appointment and removal of stewards. The panel held that a

union’s selecting stewards from whom it might expect

undivided loyalty ̄that is, from members of an affiliated

union, rather than an unaffiliated union ̄is not unreasonable

discrimination and does not, without more, breach the duty of

fair representation.

* This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has

been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader.

 Case: 13-35095, 10/28/2014, ID: 9292160, DktEntry: 35-1, Page 2 of 15
CARPENTERS V. METAL TRADES 3

COUNSEL

Craig D. Singer, Williams & Connolly LLP, Washington,

DC, argued the cause and filed the briefs for the plaintiffsappellants. With him on the briefs were Charles Davant IV,

Williams & Connolly LLP, Washington, DC, and Daniel M.

Shanley, DeCarlo & Shanley, Los Angeles, CA.

Keith Bolek, O’Donoghue &O’Donoghue LLP, Washington,

DC, argued the cause and Craig A. Power, O’Donoghue &

O’Donoghue LLP, Washington, DC, filed the brief for the

defendants-appellees.

OPINION

O’SCANNLAIN, Circuit Judge:

We must decide whether the duty of fair representation

requires unions to appoint and to remove stewards without

regard to union affiliation.

I

The United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of

America (“Carpenters”) represents half a million workers

throughout North America, including plaintiffs-appellants

Butch Parker, Scott Flannery, WilliamCrawford, and Truman

Jordan. The Metal Trades Department, AFL-CIO, (“Metal

Trades”) is a labor organization that negotiates, administers,

and enforces collective bargaining agreements. The Hanford

Atomic Metal Trades Council is a labor organization

affiliated with the Metal Trades. Hundreds of Carpenters’

 Case: 13-35095, 10/28/2014, ID: 9292160, DktEntry: 35-1, Page 3 of 15
4 CARPENTERS V. METAL TRADES

members, including the four named plaintiffs, are members

of bargaining units represented by the Metal Trades.

In 2008, the Building and Construction Trades

Department, AFL-CIO, (“Building Trades”) an umbrella

labor organization, launched the “Push-Back-Carpenters

Campaign” to force the Carpenters to reaffiliate with the

Building Trades.1 To pressure the Carpenters, the Building

Trades enlisted the Metal Trades in its campaign, convincing

the Metal Trades to expel the Carpenters from its

membership. The Metal Trades “kicked out” the Carpenters

by dissolving a “Solidarity Agreement” between the two

labor organizations.

Allegedly, the Metal Trades waged “a discriminatory,

arbitrary, and bad-faith campaign,” targeting Carpenters’

members, intended “to punish the Carpenters for reasons

unrelated to the Metal Trades or the fair representation of its

. . . bargaining unit members” who were Carpenters’

members. This campaign included stripping Carpenters’

members of their preferential positions as stewards.2

The Carpenters, on behalf of its members whose

bargaining units were represented by the Metal Trades,

including Parker, Flannery, Crawford, and Jordan, sued the

Metal Trades and one of its affiliated unions, the Hanford

1 As we are reviewing a dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

12(b)(6), we accept as true the complaint’s well-pleaded factual

allegations. E.g., OSU Student Alliance v. Ray, 699 F.3d 1053, 1061 (9th

Cir. 2012).

2 Other allegations made by the Carpenters are addressed in a

memorandum disposition filed concurrently with this opinion.

 Case: 13-35095, 10/28/2014, ID: 9292160, DktEntry: 35-1, Page 4 of 15
CARPENTERS V. METAL TRADES 5

Atomic Metal Trades Council. Its initial complaint alleged

that the Metal Trades, both by itself and through its non-party

affiliates, breached the federal duty of fair representation.

The district court dismissed the complaint, concluding

that the Carpenters failed to provide sufficient factual support

for its allegations. The court granted leave to amend.

In its amended complaint, the Carpenters included

additional detailed factual allegations, but once again, the

court dismissed for failure to state a claim, this time with

prejudice. The Carpenters timely appealed.

II

Section 9(a) of the National Labor Relations Act grants to

designated unions the “exclusive power to represent all

employees in a particular bargaining unit.” Breininger v.

Sheet Metal Workers Int’l Ass’n Local Union No. 6, 493 U.S.

67, 86–87 (1989) (citing 29 U.S.C. § 159(a)). With the power

to represent even unaffiliated workers comes the

responsibility—“created by the courts”—to “exercise [such]

power in their interest and behalf.” Simo v. Union of

Needletrades, Indus. & Textile Emps., 322 F.3d 602, 610–11

(9th Cir. 2003) (quotingAir Line Pilots Ass’n, Int’l v. O’Neill,

499 U.S. 65, 74 (1991)). This “duty of fair representation” is

the “obligation to serve the interests of all members [of a

bargaining unit] without hostility or discrimination toward

any, to exercise . . . discretion with complete good faith and

honesty, and to avoid arbitrary conduct.” Vaca v. Sipes,

386 U.S. 171, 177 (1967).

The duty of fair representation arises where “a union is

acting under authority granted by statute or a collective

 Case: 13-35095, 10/28/2014, ID: 9292160, DktEntry: 35-1, Page 5 of 15
6 CARPENTERS V. METAL TRADES

bargaining agreement.” Simo, 322 F.3d at 613. It applies

both to the negotiation, Air Line Pilots Ass’n, 499 U.S. at 77,

and to the administration, Breininger, 493 U.S. at 88, of

collective bargaining agreements. But “[d]efinitionally,” it

“does not apply where the union is not representing the

workers in question.” Simo, 322 F.3d at 614. “[A] union . . .

can be held to represent employees unfairly only in regard to

those matters as to which it represents them at all—namely,

‘rates of pay, wages, hours . . . , or other conditions of

employment.’” Int’l Bhd. of Teamsters, Local No. 310 v.

NLRB, 587 F.2d 1176, 1183 (D.C. Cir. 1978) (second

omission in original) (quoting 29 U.S.C. § 159(a)). “In other

words, the duty of fair representation extends only to matters

involving an employee’s dealings with his employer and

ordinarily does not affect an employee’s relationship with the

union structure.” Kolinske v. Lubbers, 712 F.2d 471, 481

(D.C. Cir. 1983) (citing Bass v. Int’l Bhd. of Boilermakers,

630 F.2d 1058 (5th Cir. 1980)).

In Bass, for example, the duty of fair representation did

not apply to a union’s dismissing two members from an

apprenticeship program. Because the union was not the

exclusive representative for those in the program, and

dismissal did not interfere with the members’ relationship to

their employer, the union’s decision was an “internal affair[]”

not subject to judicial scrutiny. See 630 F.2d at 1062–63. 

And courts have “usually excluded internal union affairs”

from the duty to provide fair representation. Kolinske,

712 F.2d at 481.

But merely labeling an arbitrary decision “internal” will

not relieve the union of its duty, because even internal union

affairs may “have a substantial impact upon the external

relationships of members of the unit to their employer.” 

 Case: 13-35095, 10/28/2014, ID: 9292160, DktEntry: 35-1, Page 6 of 15
CARPENTERS V. METAL TRADES 7

Retana v. Apt., Motel, Hotel & Elevator Operators Union,

Local No. 14, 453 F.2d 1018, 1024 (9th Cir. 1972). Where

the union’s “internal” decisions “have a substantial impact

upon members’ rights in relation to the negotiation and

administration of the collective bargaining agreement,” the

question is whether a union is making “‘an honest effort to

serve the interests’ of all members of the bargaining unit.” 

Id. at 1024–25 (quoting Ford Motor Co. v. Huffman, 345 U.S.

330, 337 (1953)); see also Air Line Pilots Ass’n, 499 U.S. at

67 (“[A] union breaches its duty of fair representation if its

actions are either ‘arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad faith

. . . . [A] union’s actions are arbitrary only if . . . the union’s

behavior is so far outside ‘a wide range of reasonableness”

. . . as to be irrational.” (quoting Ford Motor Co., 345 U.S. at

338)).

A

The Carpenters’ complaint alleges that the Metal Trades

violated the duty of fair representation by removing

Carpenters’ members from their positions as stewards based

on union affiliation. Whether the duty of fair representation

forbids consideration of union affiliation in the appointment

and removal of stewards presents a question of first

impression among federal appellate courts.3

3 Three of the district court cases cited by the parties, including this case,

have suggested that such question turns on whether selection of stewards

is left to the union’s discretion under the relevant collective bargaining

agreement. See Maddalone v. Local 17, United Bhd. of Carpenters, 1996

WL 562986, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 3, 1996), aff’d in part, rev’d in part on

other grounds, 152 F.3d 178 (2d Cir. 1998); Brett v. Sohio Const. Co.,

518 F. Supp. 698, 703 (D. Alaska 1981). But an exclusive bargaining

agent is required “to exercise its discretion with complete good faith and

honesty, and to avoid arbitrary conduct.” Vaca, 386 U.S. at 177 (emphasis

 Case: 13-35095, 10/28/2014, ID: 9292160, DktEntry: 35-1, Page 7 of 15
8 CARPENTERS V. METAL TRADES

1

A steward is “[a] union official who represents union

employees and who oversees the performance of union

contracts.” Black’s Law Dictionary 1549 (9th ed. 2009); see

also Kudla v. NLRB, 821 F.2d 95, 100 (2d Cir. 1987)

(recognizing “the vital role that stewards play in the

collective bargaining process by policing the contract,

advising employees on contractual provisions and

representing employees in on-site grievance proceedings”). 

Thus, the discharge of a steward to maintain “cohesive

leadership” in a union has been called “a legitimate union

interest and a plainly internal affair.” NLRB v. Int’l Bhd. of

Boilermakers, 581 F.2d 473, 476 (5th Cir. 1978) (internal

quotation marks omitted).4

added); see also Ford Motor Co., 345 U.S. at 338 (“A wide range of

reasonableness must be allowed a statutory bargaining representative in

serving the unit it represents, subject always to complete good faith and

honesty of purpose in the exercise of its discretion.” (emphasis added)). 

Where a union has more power, “its responsibility to exercise that power

fairly increasesrather than decreases.” Breininger, 493 U.S. at 89. What

terms to seek or to accept in contract negotiation, for example, is surely

“discretionary,” but subject nonetheless to the duty of fair representation. 

Air Line Pilots Ass’n, 499 U.S. at 67 (holding that unions are permitted a

“wide range of reasonableness” in exercising such discretion (citation

omitted)). On appeal, the Metal Trades does not suggest that its removal

of stewards was not subject to the duty of fair representation merely

because it was within the discretion afforded by the collective bargaining

agreements.

4 Because removal of the steward was an internal affair, our sister circuit

concluded that it was not an unfair labor practice under section 8(b)(1)(A)

of the NLRA, 29 U.S.C. § 158(b)(1)(A). Boilermakers, 581 F.2d at 476,

478. The duty of fair representation, though, is not “defined in terms of

what is an unfair labor practice.” Breininger, 493 U.S. at 86. “[A] breach

of the duty of fair representation also [can] be an unfair labor practice,”

 Case: 13-35095, 10/28/2014, ID: 9292160, DktEntry: 35-1, Page 8 of 15
CARPENTERS V. METAL TRADES 9

Stewards are not simply employees—although they are

that5—they are also representatives of the union. E.g.,

Charles Leonard, Inc., 131 NLRB 1104, 1105 (1961) (noting

that “shop steward and shop committee are arms of the

contracting union”). As representatives of the union,

stewards are bound by its duty to represent the rank-and-file

members of the bargaining unit fairly. “A shop steward with

grievance processing responsibilities isthe union vis-à-visthe

employees as well as the employer.” Local 254, SEIU,

332 NLRB 1118, 1122 (2000) (internal quotation marks and

citation omitted). A steward’s violation of the duty of fair

representation is the union’s violation, for which it may be

sued. See, e.g., Branch 3126, Nat’l Ass’n of Letter Carriers,

330 NLRB 587, 587 (2000) (finding that a steward’s

discriminatory action breached the union’s duty of fair

representation, even though the steward acted alone and not

according to union policy). According to the Carpenters’

own complaint, the Metal Trades violated its duty of fair

representation when its stewards failed to process particular

but the two concepts are not fully coextensive—“a union may breach its

duty offair representation without committing an unfair labor practice and

vice versa.” Lucas v. NLRB, 333 F.3d 927, 932 (9th Cir. 2003). Thus

Boilermakers does not hold that removal ofstewards is notsubject to such

duty. Nevertheless, we have found it useful to consider unfair labor

practice cases in defining the duty of fair representation’s scope. See

Retana, 453 F.2d at 1024 (citing Wallace Corp. v. NLRB, 323 U.S. 248

(1944) (holding that corporation committed unfair labor practice)).

5

“[T]he Chief Shop Steward really does serve the interests of the

employer . . . [a]lthough he may not be operating machinery.” Int’l Ass’n

of Machinists,LocalLodge 964 v. BF GoodrichAerospace Aerostructures

Grp., 387 F.3d 1046, 1057 (9th Cir. 2004). Wages paid by an employer

to a steward, who may be a full-time representative of the union, are paid

as compensation for their “service as an employee ofsuch employer.” Id.

at 1047, 1060.

 Case: 13-35095, 10/28/2014, ID: 9292160, DktEntry: 35-1, Page 9 of 15
10 CARPENTERS V. METAL TRADES

grievances. See Nat’l Ass’n of Letter Carriers, Branch 3126

v. NLRB, 281 F.3d 235, 237 (D.C. Cir. 2002) (noting that

union breached duty of fair representation because its steward

refused to file a grievance).

2

According to the Carpenters, the Metal Trades violated

the duty of fair representation by removing Carpenters’

members from positions as stewards solely because theywere

members of the Carpenters. We can see no meaningful

difference in a union’s discretion between appointing

stewards and removing them, and the Carpenters have given

no reason to treat them differently. Thus, if the Carpenters’

contention that the Metal Trades breached its duty when it

removed stewards because of their union affiliation is correct,

it follows that a union would breach its duty by appointing

stewards based on their union affiliation. That is to say,

exclusive bargaining unions would be required to select

stewards regardless of membership in an affiliated union, or

in any union. To justify its extraordinary argument, the

Carpenters’ brief cites no case remotely on point. For good

reason—no court has suggested that the duty of fair

representation requires unions to appoint or remove union

officers and representatives without regard to union

affiliation.

The Carpenters’ argument relies heavilyon Retana, where

we noted that even “internal” union policies and practices

could be subject to the duty of fair representation, which

“‘arises out of the union-employee relationship and pervades

it.’” 453 F.2d at 1024 (quoting Nedd v. United Mine

Workers, 400 F.2d 103, 106 (3d Cir. 1968)). Even “internal”

policies “mayhave a substantial impact” upon the employees’

 Case: 13-35095, 10/28/2014, ID: 9292160, DktEntry: 35-1, Page 10 of 15
CARPENTERS V. METAL TRADES 11

relationship to their employer. Id. (citing Wallace Corp.,

323 U.S. 248).

In Retana, a discharged hotel maid sued on behalf of

Spanish-speaking members of her union, alleging that her

union’s failure to provide, for example, a Spanish translation

of the collective bargaining agreement violated the duty of

fair representation. Id. at 1021, 1023. Although we declined

in that case “to attempt a . . . precise delineation of the scope

of the duty of fair representation,” we noted a possible

violation of the union’s duty “to make an honest effort to

serve the interests of all members of the bargaining unit.” Id.

at 1024–25 (internal quotation marks omitted). The union’s

alleged failure to take relatively easy and inexpensive steps

to accommodate its Spanish-speaking members suggested—

adequately under the relaxed pleading standard of Conley v.

Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 (1957)—that the union was not

negotiating or administrating in good faith on their behalf.

By contrast, requiring stewards to be affiliated with the

exclusive bargaining representative does not—at least not

plausibly, see Petzschke v. Century Aluminum Co. (In re

Century Aluminum Co. Sec. Litig.), 729 F.3d 1104, 1107 (9th

Cir. 2013)—imply that the union is failing to serve in good

faith the interests of all members of the bargaining unit.

In Local 254, the National Labor Relations Board

described the necessity of a union’s selecting stewards of its

own choosing. 332 NLRB at 1122. A union has a

“legitimate interest in speaking with one voice, through

trusted representatives, in dealing with the [e]mployer about

the bargaining unit employee[s’] terms and conditions of

employment.” Id.; cf. Emporium Capwell Co. v. W. Addition

Cmty. Org., 420 U.S. 50, 70 (1975) (A union “has a

 Case: 13-35095, 10/28/2014, ID: 9292160, DktEntry: 35-1, Page 11 of 15
12 CARPENTERS V. METAL TRADES

legitimate interest in presenting a united front . . . and in not

seeing its strength dissipated and its stature denigrated by

subgroups within the unit separately pursuing what they see

as separate interests.”). Such interest is “self-evident”

regarding the selection of stewards; an exclusive-bargaining

union administers a collective bargaining agreement, day-byday, through its stewards, and the stewards, in turn, are the

union. Local 254, 332 NLRB at 1122. “In the performance

of that important representational function, a union is entitled

to have as its agents only those persons whom it trusts to act

with an undivided loyalty.” Id. (emphasis added); accord

Metro. Edison Co. v. NLRB, 460 U.S. 693, 704 n. 9 (1983)

(“[N]o one, whether employer or employee need have as his

agent one who is obligated to those on the other side, or one

whom, for any reason, he does not trust.”). Consequently, the

appointment and the removal of stewards have uniformly

been considered “internal union affairs.” See, e.g.,

Boilermakers, 581 F.2d at 476; see also Local 254,

332 NLRB at 1123.

To be sure, Local 254 concerned unfair labor practices,

not the duty of fair representation, but a union’s interest in

working through trusted and loyal representatives is equally

legitimate and equally weighty in both contexts. We have

held that the duty of fair representation “does not impose

upon a union the duty to open wide its doors to anyone.” 

Moynahan v. Pari-Mutuel Emp. Guild of Cal., Local 280,

317 F.2d 209, 211 (9th Cir. 1963). If that is so in selection of

members, how much more is it in selection of union stewards.

A union serves the rank-and-file members of a bargaining

unit through its stewards and is entitled, in the interest of

serving all fairly, to the loyalty of its stewards. The duty to

represent fairly all members of a bargaining unit may

 Case: 13-35095, 10/28/2014, ID: 9292160, DktEntry: 35-1, Page 12 of 15
CARPENTERS V. METAL TRADES 13

therefore permit the union to discriminate based on union

affiliation. “Because the interests of a few individuals often

must give way to the interests of the group, courts have given

unions wide latitude.” Bernard v. Air Line Pilots Ass’n, Int’l,

873 F.2d 213, 216 (9th Cir. 1989).

3

“Wide latitude,” of course, does not necessarily “mean a

union may discriminate on the basis of union membership.” 

Id. A union is obliged to act “fairly and in good faith, and

without unreasonable discrimination.” Nedd, 400 F.2d at 105

(emphasis added). The duty of fair representation requires

unions to serve the interests of all members of the bargaining

unit,without unreasonablydiscriminating against the interests

of one particular group. Usually, such discrimination on the

basis of union membership is excellent evidence that the

union is promoting the interests of one group above another. 

So in Bernard, we noted two facts that supported finding a

violation of the duty of fair representation: the union not only

(1) refused to appoint members of a nonunion pilot group to

a team negotiating an integration agreement after a merger,

but also (2) failed to follow its merger policy of conducting

internal negotiations with that group. 873 F.2d at 216. 

Failure to take either action demonstrated that the union was

not fairly representing the nonunion pilot group’s interests. 

In particular, failing to follow the merger policy was strong

evidence of bad faith. See id. at 217.

The Carpenters’ brief does not assert that any

discrimination based on union affiliation is per se a violation

of the duty of fair representation. Quoting Bernard, 873 F.2d

at 216, it contends that “a union may breach the duty if it

‘discriminates on the basis of unionmembership.’” (emphasis

 Case: 13-35095, 10/28/2014, ID: 9292160, DktEntry: 35-1, Page 13 of 15
14 CARPENTERS V. METAL TRADES

added). As one of our sister circuits reasoned, “because a

union by necessity must differentiate among its members in

a variety of contexts, see Ford Motor Co.[, 345 U.S. at 338],

a showing that union action has disadvantaged a group of

members, without more, does not establish a breach of the

duty of fair representation.” Haerum v. Air Line Pilots Ass’n,

892 F.2d 216, 221 (2d Cir. 1989) (emphasis added) (citing

Bernard, 873 F.2d at 216); accord Dement v. Richmond,

Fredericksburg & Potomac R.R. Co., 845 F.2d 451, 458 (4th

Cir. 1988) (“[T]he fact that [some] employees do not benefit

under the . . . Agreement does not in and of itself constitute

‘discrimination’ amounting to a breach of the union’s duty of

fair representation.”).

A union’s selecting stewards from whom it might expect

undivided loyalty—that is, from members of an affiliated

union, rather than an unaffiliated union—is not unreasonable

discrimination and does not, without more, breach the duty of

fair representation.

B

The Carpenters’ complaint does not allege that the Metal

Trades removed Carpenters’ members from positions as

stewards for any reason other than union affiliation. 

According to the complaint, the Metal Trades informed

Carpenters-affiliated stewards that they were being removed

as stewards “[f]ollowing its decision to kick out the

Carpenters.” They were removed “for no reasons other than

their Carpenters membership and the refusal of the Carpenters

to meet the non-Metal Trades-related demands of the

Building Trades.” In other words, Carpenters’ members were

stripped of their steward positions because the Carpenters

were no longer affiliated with the Metal Trades and refused

 Case: 13-35095, 10/28/2014, ID: 9292160, DktEntry: 35-1, Page 14 of 15
CARPENTERS V. METAL TRADES 15

to affiliate with the Building Trades. But if those individuals

had been willing to join a union affiliated with the Metal

Trades, they would not have been removed as stewards. One

such individual,“BS,” was allowed to remain a steward when

he agreed to join the Boilermakers, an affiliate—through the

New Orleans Metal Trades Council—of the Metal Trades.

Even if the Metal Trades “singled out” Carpentersaffiliated workers “because of their union affiliation,” then,

the Carpenters’ complaint fails to state a breach of the duty of

fair representation as a matter of law.

III

We conclude that the duty of fair representation does not

prevent unions from appointing or removing stewards based

on union affiliation. The Carpenters’ allegation that the

Metal Trades removed Carpenters’ members as stewards

merely because of their affiliation with the Carpenters thus

fails as a matter of law to state a claim.

AFFIRMED.

 Case: 13-35095, 10/28/2014, ID: 9292160, DktEntry: 35-1, Page 15 of 15