N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
UNITED B R OTHER

HOOD OF C ARPENTER S AND JOINER S OF AM E R IC A; B U TC H PARKER ; SC OTT FLANNER

Y ; W ILLIAM C R

AW FORD; TR UM AN JOR

DAN, Plaintiffs - Appe lla nts,
v. M ETAL TR

ADES DEPAR TM ENT, AFLC IO; HANFOR

D ATOM IC M ETAL TR ADES C OUNC IL, De fe nda

nts - Appe lle e s. No. 13-35095 D.C . No. 2:11-c v-05159-TOR
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Ea ste rn Distric t of W a shington Thom a s O. R ic e , Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d M ay

12, 2014 Se attle , W a s hington B e fore : O’ SC A

NNLAIN, KLEINFELD, a nd B ER ZON, C irc uit Judge s . 

# FIL ED
OCT 28 2014 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3.The Unite d B rothe rhood of C arpe nte rs a nd Joine rs of Am e ric a (“ C arpe nte rs” ) a

ppe a l s the distric t

c o urt’ s dism issa l for fa ilure to sta t e a c la im of its suit aga inst theM e ta l Tra de s De pa rtm e nt, AFL-C IO, (“ M e ta l Tra de s” ) and the Hanford Atom ic M e ta l Tra de s C ounc il. W e de sc ribe the fa c ts a nd proc e dura l history an d a ddre ss the C arpe nte rs’ prim ary a l le gation in a

n opinion file d
c onc urre ntly with this me m oran dum disposition. He

re , we note that the C arpe nte rs’ c om

pla int a l le ge s tha

t the M e ta l Tra d e s viola

te d the duty

of fa i r
re pre se ntation by

thre ate ning job-re late d ha rm unle ss a C arpe nte rs-a ffilia te d worke r switc he d unions; dive rting C arpe n te rs-a ffilia

te d worke rs’ wa ge s to othe r unions; de c lining to proc e ss C arpe nte rs-a ffilia te d worke rs’ grie v anc e s; de ny ing inform at ion to C arpe nte rs-a ffilia te d worke rs; a

nd de ny ing C arpe n te rs-a ffilia te d worke rs a voic e on e m

ploy m e nt m atte rs. 1 M ost of thec om

pla int’ s “ we ll-ple a de d fa c tua l a lle gat ions,” a s oppose d to

“ m e re c onc lusory

sta te m e n ts,” A shc roft v . Iqbal , 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009), a lle ge that a ffilia te d unions, not the

M e ta l Tra de s, ha

rm e d individual C arpe nte rs. The
c om pla i nt c onta ins no sta

t e m e nts, in a

ny te rm s, of wha

t the ir a ffilia

t ion
re lationship re quire d

the M e ta l Tra de s’ a ffilia

t e s to do or not do. Se e R e sta te m e nt

1 Although the

C arpe nte rs’ c om

pla int a lle ge s othe r wrongs, the C arpe nte rs’ brie f doe s not a ddre ss the m , a nd a ny c ha l le nge s to the ir dism issa l a re wa ive d. Se e

, e .g. , Hay e s v . C nty . of San Die

go , 736 F.3d 1223, 1228 n.2 (9th C ir. 2013).

2(Third) of Age nc y § 1.01 c m

t. f(1). So the re is no wa

y to te ll from

the c om pla int what those a ffilia

te s “ “ re a s ona

bly unde rst[ood] ” the M e ta l Tra de s’ obje c tive s to be
. Se e R e sta

te m e nt (Third) of Age n c y § 2.02(1). The re fore the c om pla int doe s not “pla usibly ” sugge st a

n a ge nc y re lationship be twe e n the M e ta l Tra d e s a nd its
a ffilia te s, m uc h le ss a re l ationship en c om

pa ssing e ve ry

a c tion ta ke n by any a ffilia te
any whe re a ga inst theC arpe nte rs. P e tzsc hk e v . C e n tury Aluminum C

o. (In re C e ntury A luminum C

o. Se c . Litig.) , 729 F.3d 1104, 1107–08 (9th C ir. 2013). The c om pla int’ s fa c tua l a lle gations a c c use a ffilia t e d unions, not the

M e ta l Tra de s , of thre ate ning job-re late d ha rm unle ss a worke r switc he d unions a nd of dive rting wa ge s. B e c a

u se the c om

p la int fa ils to a lle ge pla

u sibly tha t the a ffilia

te s have an a ge nc y re lationship with the

M e ta l Tra de s, it fa ils to sta te a c la im a ga inst the M e ta l Tra de s for those wrongs. As to de c lining to proc e ss grie va nc e s , the C a

rpe nte rs’ c om

pla int c onta ins
one fa c tua l a lle gat ion a ga inst theM e ta l Tra de s. B ut it doe s not pla usibly a lle ge that the M e ta l Tra de s “ arbitra rily ” or “ pe rfunc torily ” proc e sse d the worke r’ s grie va nc e in tha t insta nc e , be c a use it doe s not pla

usibly a lle ge tha

t the worke r brought his griev anc e “ to [the M e ta l Tra de s’ ] atte ntion.” Diaz v . Int’l Longshore & W are h ouseUnion, Loc al 13 , 474 F.3d 1202, 1207 (9th C ir. 2007).

3Sim ila rly , the c om

pla int a lle ge s one e xam

ple of the M e ta l Tra d e s’ de ny ing inform at ion to individua

l C a rpe nte rs. B ut it doe s not a l le ge tha t it wa s the M e ta l Tra de s ’ obliga

t ion to provide suc h inform at ion, nor tha t any “ substa ntia l pre judic e to a n e m ploy e e , pa

rtic ula rly the loss of e m

ploy m e n t” re sulte d
. Robe

sk y v . Qantas Empire Airw ay s Ltd. , 573 F.2d 1082, 1090 n.17 (9th C i r. 1978). Fina lly , the c om

p la i nt’ s one fa c tua l a lle gat ion tha t the M e ta l Tra de s de nie d a

“ voic e ” to a

C arpe nte rs’ m e m

be r m e re ly

a l le ge s tha

t the worke r wa s no longe r
a llowe d to pa

rtic ipate in the ne g otia

tion of a c olle c tive ba

rga ining a gre e m e nt. B ut the d uty of fa ir re pre se ntation doe s not gra nt una ffilia

t e d worke rs the right to
ne gotia te for the m se lve s. Suc h

a right would be

inc onsiste nt with the

M e ta l Tra de s ’ role a s e xc lusive ba rga ining a g e nt. Se e 29 U.S.C . § 159(a ); se e also Emporium C

apw e l l C o. v . W . Addition C

mty . Org. , 420 U.S. 50, 69–70 (1975). The c om p la int doe s not pla

usibly a lle ge tha

t the M e ta l Tra de s fa ile d to re pre se nt C arpe nte rs’ m e m

be rs fa i rly during thene gotia tions. AFFIRM E D.

4