Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-02261/USCOURTS-ca10-90-02261-0/pdf.json

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

---

' 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

FILED 

United States Court of Appealo 

Tenth Circ11it 

SENOVIO A. GALLEGOS, ) 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellant, ) 

) 

v. ) 

) 

UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE; NATIONAL ) 

ASSOCIATION OF LETTER CARRIERS; ) 

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF LETTER ) 

CARRIERS, LOCAL UNION NO. 504, ) 

) 

Defendants-Appellees. ) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

OCT 2 41991 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 90-2261 

(D.C. No. 88-798-JB) 

(D. N.M.) 

Before McKAY, Chief Judge, EBEL, Circuit Judge, and SAFFELS,** 

District Judge. 

**Honorable Dale E. Saffels, Senior District Judge, United States 

District Court for the District of Kansas, sitting by designation. 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

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 

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 estoppal. 10th Cir. R. 

36.3. 

Appellate Case: 90-2261 Document: 010110092153 Date Filed: 10/24/1991 Page: 1 
I 

• 

After seven years' employment, Plaintiff was discharged from 

the United States Postal Service (USPS) in New Mexico for 

insubordination to his supervisor and taking unauthorized leave. 

Plaintiff requested his union, the National Association of Letter 

Carriers (Union), to process a grievance against the USPS. The 

grievance proceeded to arbitration. After a hearing, the 

arbitrator determined that the USPS had just cause to terminate 

Plaintiff's employment. Plaintiff then sued his union and his 

former employer under 39 u.s.c. S 1208(b) alleging breach of duty 

of fair representation and wrongful discharge. 

Plaintiff alleged that the Union breached its duty of fair 

representation because (1) his representative at the arbitration 

was not thoroughly familiar with his case; (2) his representative 

did not insist that the arbitrator hear three witnesses in person 

instead of by affidavit; (3) Plaintiff's medical documentation was 

not presented to the arbitrator; and (4) the Union failed to 

communicate offers of settlement. Plaintiff further alleged that 

the Union and the USPS conspired to deprive him of his employment. 

In support of their motions for summary judgment, Defendants 

submitted Plaintiff's deposition in which he stated that the Union 

representative's arbitration brief contained all of the available 

arguments in his favor. Defendants also filed an affidavit from 

the Union representative stating that the medical evidence did not 

2 

Appellate Case: 90-2261 Document: 010110092153 Date Filed: 10/24/1991 Page: 2 
I 

address the allegations of insubordination and unauthorized leave. 

In addition, there were affidavits stating that no settlement 

offers had been made by the USPS. 1 

The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the 

USPS and the Union, holding that Plaintiff had failed to 

demonstrate the existence of a genuine issue of fact on the 

Union's breach of duty. 2 The district court found that the first 

three allegations were tactical decisions which did not establish 

that the Union breached its duty of fair representation. On the 

remaining allegation of the failure to communicate settlement 

offers, the district court found that Plaintiff also had failed to 

raise a genuine issue of fact. On appeal, Plaintiff asserts that 

the district court erred in entering summary judgment because the 

affidavits submitted to the district court establish genuine 

issues of fact regarding whether the Union breached its duty of 

fair representation. 

We apply the same standard of review employed by the district 

court under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). Applied Genetics Int'l, Inc. 

v. First Affiliated Sec., Inc., 912 F.2d 1238, 1241 (10th Cir. 

1990). The record must be viewed in the light most favorable to 

the party opposing the summary judgment. Ewing v. Amoco Oil Co., 

823 F.2d 1432, 1437 (10th Cir. 1987). The moving party carries 

1 The USPS and the Union argued that because Plaintiff could 

not prevail on his claim against the Union, he could not prevail 

on his claim against the USPS. They adopt the same argument here. 

2 The district court granted the local union's unopposed Motion 

to Dismiss. 

3 

Appellate Case: 90-2261 Document: 010110092153 Date Filed: 10/24/1991 Page: 3 
? 

the burden of showing beyond a reasonable doubt that it is 

entitled to summary judgment. Id. The nonmoving party must, 

however, designate specific facts demonstrating the existence of a 

genuine issue for trial as to the dispositive issues on which it 

will bear the burden of proof at trial. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 

477 U.S. 317, 324 (1986). 

Case law developed under the Labor Management Relations Act, 

29 u.s.c. S 185 (a), is relevant to this postal employee case. 

See United States Postal Serv. v. American Postal Workers Union, 

AFL-CIO, 893 F.2d 1117, 1120 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 111 S. Ct. 

67 (1990)(cases interpreting 29 u.s.c. S 185(a) have been applied 

to determine the court's authority pursuant to 39 u.s.c. 

S 1208(b)); see also Bowen v. United States Postal Serv., 459 U.S. 

212 (1983)(applies 29 u.s.c. S 185(a) to claims brought by postal 

employee); Young v. United States Postal Serv., 907 F.2d 305, 307 

(2d Cir. 1990)(applied law of nonpostal cases to claims against 

postal service); United States Postal Serv. v. American Postal 

Workers Union, AFL-CIO, 893 F.2d 1117, 1120 (9th Cir.)(cases 

interpreting 29 u.s.c. S 185(a) have been applied to determine the 

court's authority pursuant to 39 U.S.C. S 1208(b)), cert. denied, 

111 S. Ct. 67 (1990); Bacashihua v. United States Postal Serv., 

859 F.2d 402, 405 (6th Cir. 1988)("[law for 29 u.s.c. S 185(a)] is 

consistently applied to actions brought under 39 U.S.C. 

S 1208(b)"); Roman v. United States Postal Serv., 821 F.2d 382, 

386 (7th Cir. 1987)(requirement of exhaustion of remedies under 29 

U.S.C. S 185(a) applies to cases authorized by 39 U.S.C. 

S 1208(b)). 

4 

Appellate Case: 90-2261 Document: 010110092153 Date Filed: 10/24/1991 Page: 4 
To prevail against either the employer or the Union, a 

discharged employee must not only show that his discharge was 

contrary to the contract, but must also carry the burden of 

demonstrating breach of duty of fair representation by the Union. 

See Hines v. Anchor Motor Freight, Inc., 424 U.S. 554, 570-71 

(1976). A breach of the statutory duty of fair representation 

occurs "only when a union's conduct toward a member of the 

collective bargaining unit is arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad 

faith." United Steelworkers of Am., AFL-CIO-CLC v. Rawson, 110 

S. Ct. 1904, 1911 (1990)(quoting Vaca v. Sipes, 386 U.S. 171, 190 

(1967)). 

If the breach of the duty of fair 

undermined the integrity of the 

representation "seriously 

arbitral process," the 

arbitrator's decision can be set aside. Barnett v. United Air 

Lines, Inc., 738 F.2d 358, 362 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 

1087 (1984); see also Hines, 424 U.S. at 567 ("[I]f it seriously 

undermines the integrity of the 

breach ..• removes the bar of the 

[collective bargaining] contract."). 

"[T]he grievance processes 

error-free." Hines, 424 U.S. at 571. 

arbitral 

finality 

process the union's 

provisions of the 

cannot be expected to be 

Actionable conduct on the 

part of the Union involves more than "mere errors in judgment." 

Id.; accord Castelli v. Douglas Aircraft Co., 752 F.2d 1480, 1483 

(9th Cir. 1985). Tactical errors or negligence of the Union do 

not give rise to a breach of duty, even if the errors conceivably 

might have affected the outcome of the arbitration. Barr v. 

United Parcel Serv., Inc., 868 F.2d 36, 43 (2d Cir. 1989). 

5 

Appellate Case: 90-2261 Document: 010110092153 Date Filed: 10/24/1991 Page: 5 
Here, Plaintiff has failed to establish factual issues 

regarding whether the arbitral process was undermined by the Union 

representative's tactical decisions at the arbitration hearing. 

Plaintiff presented no evidence in support of his allegation that 

his Union representative was not familiar enough with the case. 

On the contrary, Plaintiff admitted that the Union 

representative's brief was thorough and correct. 

App. at 16-17. 

Appellee Supp. 

On his claim of failure to present medical documentation, the 

only available evidence was that Plaintiff was medically required 

to limit his work shifts to eight hours. The Union 

representative's statement is uncontroverted that the medical 

evidence was not pertinent to the allegations against Plaintiff. 

The Union representative acquiesced in the arbitrator's 

decision not to hear personal testimony from three witnesses who 

were prepared to testify on behalf of Plaintiff. The arbitrator 

received written affidavits from each of the three witnesses. A 

decision not to call witnesses at an arbitration hearing does not 

necessarily constitute a breach of the duty of fair 

representation, see id. at 44, particularly where, as here, the 

Plaintiff does not allege that the testimony of his witnesses 

would have differed from, or added to, their respective 

affidavits. Moreover, none of those witnesses had personal 

knowledge about the incidents on which the charges against 

Plaintiff were based. 

Plaintiff's remaining contention is that the Union failed to 

communicate settlement offers between the USPS and Plaintiff. In 

6 

Appellate Case: 90-2261 Document: 010110092153 Date Filed: 10/24/1991 Page: 6 
addressing this claim, we will consider the record in the light 

most favorable to Plaintiff. 

Plaintiff alleges that an offer of settlement of 

reinstatement with no back pay was authorized by a USPS area 

manager on the day of the arbitration, but no offer was conveyed 

to Plaintiff. 

Plaintiff fails to demonstrate an issue of fact concerning 

the alleged offer. We accept as true Plaintiff's statement that a 

few days after the arbitration hearing, USPS Area Manager Frank 

Padilla expressed to Plaintiff Padilla's understanding that 

Plaintiff had refused an offer of reinstatement with no back pay 

made on the day of the arbitration. That statement neither 

contradicts nor conflicts with Padilla's affidavit that Padilla 

had authorized the USPS advocate to make such an offer. After 

mentioning the alleged offer to Plaintiff, Padilla learned that 

the USPS advocate never made the offer to the Union because the 

advocate felt that the USPS was likely to win at arbitration so 

had decided not to settle the grievance. Appellee Supp. App. at 

3. 

Even though Plaintiff asserted that the settlement offer had 

been authorized, he has not established a factual issue of whether 

the USPS advocate had conveyed a settlement offer to the Union. 

Because Plaintiff did not establish that the settlement offer was 

conveyed to the Union, he cannot prevail. 

Plaintiff also alleges that on the day before the arbitration 

hearing, the Union representative informed Plaintiff that the USPS 

had offered as settlement reinstatement of his job and three 

7 

Appellate Case: 90-2261 Document: 010110092153 Date Filed: 10/24/1991 Page: 7 
months' back pay. Plaintiff directed the Union representative to 

try to get four months' back pay, but to take the three months if 

the USPS would not agree to more. Later, when Plaintiff asked 

about the status of the offer, the Union representative made a 

telephone call, ostensibly to convey Plaintiff's counter offer to 

the USPS advocate. After the call, the representative told 

Plaintiff that the "Postal Service would not go with the 

offer .... [Plaintiff] understood this to mean that they were 

not interested in settling the grievance." Appellant App. at 13. 

Based on these facts, we conclude that no contract of settlement 

was formed. 

Federal, rather than state, substantive law controls the 

settlement negotiations because Plaintiff's claims are founded on 

federal labor law. See Johnson v. Beatrice Foods Co., 921 F.2d 

1015, 1018 (10th Cir. 1990)(federal, and not state, law must be 

used in adjudicating claims brought under 29 u.s.c. S 185(a)); see 

also International Bhd. of Elec. Workers, AFL-CIO v. Hechler, 481 

U.S. 851, 855 (1987)("Congress, through [29 u.s.c. S 185(a)], had 

authorized federal courts to create a body of federal law for the 

enforcement of collective-bargaining agreements - law 'which the 

courts must fashion from the policy of our national labor laws.' 

(Textile Workers Union v. Lincoln Mills, 353 U.S. 448, 456 

(1957)]"); Allis-Chalmers Corp. v. Lueck, 471 U.S. 202, 209 

(1985)(federal policy of 29 u.s.c. s 185(a) is to apply 

substantive federal law to be fashioned by the courts from the 

policy of our national labor laws); Complete Auto Transit, Inc. v. 

Reis, 451 U.S. 401, 407 (1981)("[W)e 'discharg[e) the duty 

8 

Appellate Case: 90-2261 Document: 010110092153 Date Filed: 10/24/1991 Page: 8 
Congress imposed on us to formulate the federal law to govern [29 

u.s.c. S 185(a)] suits,' [Atkinson v. Sinclair Refining Co., 370 

U.S. 238, 248-49 (1962)]."). 

"In fashioning federal substantive law, courts may adopt 

state law in whole or in part to the extent that it is compatible 

with federal labor policy." Karo v. San Diego Symphony Orchestra 

Ass'n, 762 F.2d 819, 821 (9th Cir. 1985)(citing Rehmar v. Smith, 

555 F.2d 1362, 1368 (9th Cir. 1976)(citing Textile Workers Union 

v. Lincoln Mills, 353 U.S. at 457)). 

New Mexico law applies. Under New Mexico law, "[f]or there 

to be a contract, the offer must be accepted unconditionally and 

unqualifiedly by the offeree. The acceptance must be to all 

terms." Corr v. Braasch, 639 P.2d 566, 567 (N.M. 198l)(citations 

omitted). A response to an offer that purports to accept it, but 

which adds conditions not contained in the original offer, is not 

an acceptance but is a counteroffer. Polhamus v. Roberts, 175 

P.2d 196, 198 (N.M. 1946). "An offer not under seal or given for 

consideration may be withdrawn at any time prior to unconditional 

acceptance by offeree." K. L. House Constr. Co. v. Watson, 508 

P.2d 592, 593-94 (N.M. 1973). 

In this case, Plaintiff did not authorize an unconditional 

acceptance of the offer. Because his purported acceptance was 

conditioned upon an additional term not contained in the original 

offer, four months' back pay instead of three, Plaintiff's 

response 

withdraw 

constituted 

its offer 

a counteroffer. 

at that point 

unconditional acceptance by Plaintiff. 

9 

The USPS was 

since it was 

free 

prior 

to 

to 

Appellate Case: 90-2261 Document: 010110092153 Date Filed: 10/24/1991 Page: 9 
The USPS response that it would not settle does not establish 

that the Union failed to convey Plaintiff's counteroffer. The 

USPS was within its rights in refusing to settle at any time 

before Plaintiff unequivocally accepted an outstanding settlement 

offer. Therefore, even when viewed in the light most favorable to 

Plaintiff, no genuine issue of fact was established regarding the 

Union's breach of its duty of fair representation. 

Because we affirm the district court's grant of summary 

judgment, we do not reach Plaintiff's argument that he was 

entitled to a jury trial. 

We have reviewed Plaintiff's remaining arguments and find 

them to be without merit. 

The judgment of the United States District Court for the 

District of New Mexico is AFFIRMED. 

10 

Entered for the Court 

Monroe G. McKay 

Chief Judge 

Appellate Case: 90-2261 Document: 010110092153 Date Filed: 10/24/1991 Page: 10