*

The Honora

ble J ames G. Carr, Chief J udg e of the Norther n District of Ohio, sitting by desig nation.

1 I n Marc h 2006, defe ndant For mTech purcha sed Metaldy ne’s plant a

nd hired its worke rs. Metaldy ne is not party

to this l awsuit.
1

NOT RECOMMENDED F OR PUBL I CATI ON

File Na me: 08a0786n.06 Filed: De cembe r 24, 2008 No. 08-1083 U N IT E D S T A T E S C O U R T O F A P P E A LS F O R T H E S IX T H C IR C U IT
J AMES KEL SEY, Pla int if f- Ap pe lla nt,
v. For mTech I NDUSTRI ES and WES T SI DE L OCAL174, De fe nd ants -A

pp e lle e s. )

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON APPEALFROM THE U NI TED STATES DI S TRI CT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DI STRI CT OF MI CHI GAN
OPI NI ON

Before: M ARTIN and KETHL EDGE, Circ uit Jud ges; and CARR, Distr ict Judge. * JAMES G. C ARR, DISTRICT JUDG E. Plaintiff J am es Kelsey , a for mer Meta ldy

ne Precision For

ming [“Metaldy

ne”] employ ee a

nd member to a

collective ba

rg aining unit repre sented by West S ide L ocal 174 [“L ocal 174” or “U nion”], appea l s fr o m the district court’s g rant of summary judgme nt in favor of

defen d ants For

mTech Industries [“FormTe ch”] and L ocal 174. 1 K e ls e y b r in g s a § 3 0 1 h y b r id c la im u n d e r th e L a

b o r M a n a g e me n t Re lati o n s A c t o f 1 9 4 7 [“ L M RA ” ],2

29 U.S.C. § 185 , alleg ing that the Union brea ched its duty of fa ir repr esentation and that his former employ er br eac hed a c ollective bar g aining ag ree ment [C BA ]. For the reasons that follow, we AF F IRM the dis tr ic t c ourt ’s g ra nt o f s umm ary

jud g me nt i n fa vo r o f t he de fe nd ants
. Bac kgr ound On October 29, 2004, while employ ed by Metaldy ne as a f orklift or “hi-lo” operator, Kelsey dr o v e h i s h i

- l o i n t o a

f o r k l i f t o p e r a t e d b y h i s c o - w o r

k e r . A f t e r a l l o w i n g h i s c o - w o r

k e r t o dr i v e aw ay, Kelsey hit him wit h his forklift for a second time. Ke lsey y elled expletives throughout the incide nt and shouted that sala

ried e mploy ees w ere not allowed to drive f orklifts. I n a conve rsation with the Metaldy ne fore man later

that day , Kelsey

admitted what he ha d done and e x plained that he did it, essentially , beca use he f elt like it. The fore man then sent Ke lsey home. Kelse y

asser ts that he reme mbers neither the incident nor his conve rsation with the fore man. As part of Metaldy

ne’s investigation, Ke lsey took a drug test that same da y and tested positive for opiates. Metaldy

ne ter minated Kelse y ’s employ ment on November

3, 2004. Soon after, a

doctor diag nosed Kelsey with N euroc ardiog enic Sy ncope, a medica l condition
c ha ra c te r i z e d

b y t h e e p i s o d i c r e d

u c t i o no f b l o o d c i r c u l a t i o nt o t h e b r a i n . P a t i e n t s w i th Neur o c ar d io g e n ic Sy

n c o p e e xp e r ie n c e f

a ti g u e , li g h th e a d e dn e s s , d iz zi n e s s , p a lp it a ti o n s , n a u s e a,
sweating, a ches a

nd fainting . Although this condition does not ca use threats or violence, K elsey contends that it ca

used his violent behavior. Per Ke lsey ’s re quest, L o ca l 1 74 filed a g rieva nce c ontending that Metaldy ne discha rg ed Ke lse y wi tho ut j us t c a

us e . M e ta ldy

ne de nie d th e g ri e va

nc e , re a so nin g that K e lse y ’s c on du c t c ou ld3

have se vere ly

injured or killed a f

ellow employ ee. Me taldy ne al s o n o t ed t hat it did not rece ive
assura nce that a similar incident would not happen a g ain. L ocal 174’ s Financ ial Secre tary -Tre asu r e r , Jim B u r ton, investigated the g rieva nce by , among other thi ng s, interviewing ey ewitnesses, discussing eve nts with relevant pa rties and r eviewingthe CBA. He also met with Kelsey on at l east ten occa sions, rea d his medical re cord a nd lear ned about Neur ocar dioge nic Sy

ncope. B ased on his investig ation, Bur ton concluded that Kelsey ’s m edica l condition did not excuse his assault. L ocal 174, ther efor e, withdre w the g rieva nce, r ender ing Metaldy ne’s decision final and binding. Kelsey rec eived notice about this withdrawal on Apr il 29, 2005. Kelsey

initiated an interna l gr ievanc e proc edure and ap p ea l ed his case to the I nternational Exe c uti ve B oa

rd [I EB ]. U nd e r I EB po lic y , a n e mpl oy e e wi th h ig h s e nio ri ty sh ou ld h a ve his g rieva nce pr ocesse d unless compelling evidenc e indicates that it c annot be won. The I EB c oncluded that such evide nce did not exist i n Kelsey ’s ca se, and direc ted L ocal 174 to reinstate the g rieva nce. Pursuant to this order, the Union a sked F ormTec h to reinstate the grieva nce but F ormTec h ref used. L ocal 174 then a sked F ormTec h t o reconsider a nd arbitrate the g rieva

nce to pr omote the “g ood barg aining relationship” betwee n L ocal 174 and For mTech. For

mTech, a g ain, re fused. The Union informed Ke lsey

that they tried, albe it unsuccessfully , to reinstat e th e gr ie v a n ce a nd exhausted all options. Kelsey filed this lawsuit on March 28, 2007, alleg ing a § 301 hy brid claim. He asser

ted that his fo rm e r e mpl oy e r br e a c he d its CB A by dis c ha rg ing him and

L oc a l 17 4 b re a c he d it s d uty of fa ir
re pr e se ntatio n b y

wi thd ra wi ngthe g ri e va

nc e and fa ili ngto p e rsuad e Form Te c h to re ins tate it. For mTech a nd L ocal 174 f

iled motions for summary judgme nt, which the district c ourt g rante d. The2

B y up ho ldi ngthe dis tr ic t c ourt ’s d ete rm in ati on that L oc a l 17 4 d id n ot b re a c h it s d uty of fa ir repr esentation, we find that Ke lsey ’s § 301 claim fails on the mer its. W e, ther efor e, have no rea son to examine the additional ar g uments raised by the def endants. Se e De lCo ste llo , su pra , 462 U.S. at 164-65
. F o r t h e r e c o r d , h o w e v e r , t h e d e f e n d an t s ar g u e t h a t K e l s e y’ s c l a i ma g a i n s tF o r m T e c hi s b ar

r e d b y a six -month statute of limita t i o n s . T h ey contend that Ke lsey ’s first cla im for bre ach of the Union’s du ty of fa ir re pr e se ntatio n fa ils be c a

us e it is time -b arr e d, wi tho ut me ri t and su bje c t to a g oo d f a ith defe nse. F inally , the def

endants a rgue that Ke lsey ’s sec ond claim ag ainst the Union is barre d for fa ilure to e xha

us t ma nd a tor y int e rn a l un ion

a pp e a ls a nd is w ith out me ri t. 4 c ourt fo un d Ke lse y ’s c la ims a g a ins t Fo rm Te c h to be tim e -b arr e d. I t a lso fo un d K e lse y ’s fi rs t c la im ag ainst L ocal 174 to be time- barr ed and his fir st and second c laims to be without merit. Discussion Th is C ourt

re vie ws a

dis tr ict cou rt ’s g ra

nt o f s umm ary

jud g me nt de novo
. Hinchman v

. Mo or e , 312 F.3d 198, 201 ( 6th Cir.2002)
. To pr e va il o n a

hy br id c la im und e r § 30 1 o f t he L MRA , a

pla int if f mu st sh ow th a t hi s employ er br eac hed its CBA a nd union brea ched its duty of fa ir repr esentation. DelCostello v. Int’l Bh d. of T e am ste rs , 462 U.S. 151, 164- 65 (1983) . A fa ilure to prove e ither cla im is fatal to a § 301 suit. Garrish v. UAW

, 417 F.3d 590, 594 ( 6th Cir.2005) (“I f both prong s are not satisfied, Plaintiffs cannot suc cee d ag ainst any Def endant.” ). A. Duty of FairRepre sentation Kelsey asser ts that L ocal 174 br eac hed its duty of fair repr esentation by : 1) withdraw ing the g rieva nce; a nd 2) fa iling to convince For mTech to re instate the withdrawn g rieva nce. We disag ree . Be cause Kelsey

cannot pr ove that L ocal 174 br eac hed its duty of fa ir repr esentation, summ ary judgme nt is appropriate
. 25

The duty of fair repr esentation ensure s that unions repr esent e mploy ees “ adequately
. . . h o nestly and in g ood faith.” Ai r Lin e Pi lot s A ss’n I nt’ l v . O ’N

e il , 499 U.S. 65, 75 (1991) . To establish brea ch of th i s d uty , a plaintiff must show that the union’s “c onduct towar d a member of the collec tive barg aining unit is arbitrary , discriminatory , or i n bad fa ith.” Vaca v . Sipes , 3 86 U. S. 171, 190 (1967) . “[A] uni on’s ac tions are arbitrar y only if, in light of the fac tual and leg al landsca pe at the time of the union’s a ctions, the union ’s b eh av i o r i s so far outside a wide r ang e of
rea sonablene ss as to be irrational.” Ai r Lin e Pi lot s , su pra , 499 U.S. at 67 (interna l citations omit ted). “Simple ne g lige nce or mere err ors in judg ment will not suffice.” W alk v. P*I *E Nationw ide, Inc

. , 958 F.2d 1323, 1326 ( 6th Cir.1992)
. Under this duty , “a u n ion may not ignor e a me ritor iou s g rieva nce or proce ss it in a perf unctory fashion.” Va c a, su

pra , 386 U.S. at 191 (empha sis provided). Unions ar e not, howeve r, obligated to prosec ute grieva nces that they

find to be meritless. W

illiams v. Molphus , 171 F.3d 360, 366-67 (6th Cir.1999) (“ [A] un ion do e s n ot h a ve to p ro c e ss a g ri e van c e that it

de e ms l a c ks me ri t,
a s lo nga s it

make s th a t de te rm inatio n in g oo d f a ith .” ); W alters v. Local Union No. 337 , 7 F.Supp.2d 885, 892 (E.D.Mich. 1998) (“ [Th e ] Un ion is no t un de r a n o bli g a tio n to purs ue arb itr a tio n w he n it finds a g rieva

nt guilty of ser ious misconduct.”). 1. Local 174’s Dec ision to Withdraw T he Gr ievance L oc a l 17 4’ s d e c isi on to wi thd ra w the g ri e va

nc e wa s no t arb itr ary , dis c ri min a tor y or ma de in bad fa ith. Prior to making any deter mination, B urton conducte d a thoroug h investigation where he met with Kel s e y

o na t l e a s t t e no c c a s io n s , r e a d h is me d ic a l r e c o r d s an d le ar n e d a b o ut Ne ur oc ard iog e nic Sy

nc op e . Su c h ac tio ns ill us tr a te B ur ton ’s a tte mpt to g a the r s uf fi c ie nt e vid e nc e to repr esent Ke lsey
.6

By his investigation’s conclusion, howeve r, B urton believe d that just cause supporte d Metaldy ne’s discha

rg e dec ision and Kelsey ’s me d ic a l dia g nosis did not provide a leg itimate defe nse. Burt on deter

min e d th a t K e lse y ’s g ri e va nc e la c ke d me ri t, a

de c isi on a bs olv ingL oc a l 17 4 o f i ts obligation to continue to process the g rieva nce. See W

illiams , su pra , 171 F.3d at 366-67
. Kelsey contends that B urton was biase d aga i n s t him, resulting in a f aulty investigation. Kelsey supports this c ontention by pointing to his conver sation with B urton two wee ks befor e the investigation in which Burton told Kelse y that he would neve r work for For mTech a g ain. Given the
overw helming w eig ht of the evide nce suppor ting the district c ourt’s ruling , that comment ca nnot be deeme d to manifest bias on B urton’s par t. As noted by

the district court, B urton’s comment is not inhere ntly biased. At most, it is an ambig uous prediction and assessment of the situation g iven the fac ts be fore him. Despite Kelsey ’s fa ilure to p ro vid e e vid e nc e su ff ic ie nt ly su pp orti nghis c la im, B ur ton c on tin ue d to c on du c t hi s investigation and proce ss the g rieva nce. L ocal 174’ s ultim ate de cision to withdraw the g rieva nce, b a s e d o nt h e r e s u l to f

B u rt o n ’ s i n v e s t i g a t i o n , w a s r e a s o n a b l e , an d f ar f r o mar b i t r ar y. Ke lse y c la ims that B ur

ton ’s a c tio ns were “ pe rf un c tor y ,” jus t a s th e un ion ’s we re in Sc ho on ov e r v . Co ns oli da te d F re igh twa y s Co rp . o f D e law ar e , 147 F.3d 492, 495 (6th Cir.1988)
. In Schoonove r , howeve r, the union re prese ntative only met with the employ ee onc e bef ore the arbitration, never g ather ed scie ntific evidenc e and pr e s e nte d a ver y short and inef

fec tive prese ntation at t h e gr i ev an ce h ea ri n g. Id

. Gi ve n B ur

ton ’s e xten siv e inv e sti g a tio n, thi s c a se is r e a dil y distinguishable.7 2. Local 174’s F ailure to Re instate The Gr ievance L oc a l 17 4 ma de a dil ig e nt, g oo d f a ithe ff or t to re ins tate Ke lse y ’s g ri e va nc e and the re fo re did not brea ch its duty

of fa ir repr esentation. Although the CB A af forde d no opportunity to reinstate the g ri e va nc e , L oc a l 17 4 s til l f

ou g ht o n K e lse y ’s be ha lf
. Th e Un ion no tif

ie d F or mT e c h of its int e nt t o submit t he g rieva

nce to arbitration, but For

mTech refuse d to reinstate it. The Union asked For mTech to do so to “promote and a dvance ” their r elationship and, i n an attempt to reach a deal, e ven sug g ested a

waiver of bac k pay

liability . For

mTech, a g ain, re fused. L ocal 174 h ad n o d u t y o r ability to do more. I t truly

exhausted its opti ons. The Union’s actions, conse quently , wer e fa r fr om discriminatory , arbitra ry or made in bad fa ith. We conclude that L ocal 174 did not bre ach its duty of fa ir repr esentation, a deter mination that sufficie ntly

prec ludes Kelsey ’s succ essful § 301 hy brid claim. Se e De lCo ste llo , su pra , 462 U.S. at 164-65
. Conclusion For the fore g oing r easons, we AF F IRM the dis tr ic t c ourt ’s g ra nt o f s umm ary

jud g me nt i n fa vo r o f t he de fe nd ants
.