2007 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 6-5-2007 

# W iggins v . H ein z N A P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 06-4955

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2007

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2007 D e c i sion s b y an authori z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " W i ggin s v . H einz NA" (2007). 2007 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1005. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2007/1005NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT N O . 06- 4955

________________ A LFO N SO G RE EN W I G G I N S,

A ppel l ant v. HEI NZ N OR TH A M ERI CA . ; W I LLI AM H. M CN EECE, Pl a n tM a n a g e r ; UN I TED F OOD AND COM M ERC I AL WO RKERS UNI ON LOCAL # 5 6 ; ANTHON Y R. C I N A G L I A , Pr es i dent ; J A C K SW I FT , B us i nes s R epr es ent at i ve

____________________________________ O n A p p ea l Fro m the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt

Forthe D i s tr i ctof N ew J er s ey ( D . C . C i v. N o. 04- cv- 06048) D istric t Ju d g e : H o n o ra b le J e ro m e B . S im a n d le

_______________________________________ Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

J une 1, 2007 BEFORE: FI SHER, ALD I SERT a n d W EI S, CI RCU I T J UD GES

( Fi l ed: J une 5, 2007 )

_______________________

OP I NI ON

_______________________ P E R C UR I AM A l fons o G r een W i ggi ns , pr ocee di ng pr o s e, appea l s an or derof the U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ctC our tforthe D i s tr i ctof N ew J er s eygr ant i ng m ot i ons fors um m aryj udgm ent2

fi l ed byA ppel l ees , U ni t ed Food and C om m er ci al W or ker s U ni on, L ocal #56 ( “Local 56”) , H ei nz N or th A m er i ca ( “H ei nz”) , and H ei nz pl antm anage rW i l l i am M cN eec e, and d e n y i n g Wi g g i n s ’ c r o s s - mo t i o n f o rs u mm a ryj u d g me n t . F o rth e f o l l o wi n g r e a s o n s , we wi l l a f f i r m. W i ggi ns w as a mem berof Local 56 dur i ng hi s empl oym enton the thi r d s ani t at i on s hi ftatH ei nz’ s pl anti n Penns auken, N ew J er s ey . A ft ercons ul t i ng w i th offi ci al s fr om L ocal 56, H ei nz dec i ded t o di s cont i nue the thi r d s hi ft . H ei nz hel d a meet i ng i nform i ng W ig g in s a n d o th e r m e m b e rs o f th e th ird sh if

t o f th is d e c isio n a n d n o tify in g th e m o f th e ir s ever ance opt i ons underthe col l ect i ve bar gai ni ng agr eementbetw een H ei nz and Local 56. T he companyal s o advi s ed the af fec t ed empl oy ees t o cont actthe company ’ s hum an re s o u rc e s d e p a rt m e n t if th e yw is h e d to a p p ly f

o r a p o s itio n in th e f

ir s t s a n ita tio n s h if

t. W ig g in s d e c lin e d to d o s o , a n d th u s h is e m p lo ym e n t w ith H e in z te rm in a te d . W ig g in s f

iled a g rie v a n c e w ith L o c a l 5 6 c h a llen g in g H e in z ’s d e c isio n to e lim in a te the thi r d s hi ft . L ocal 56 r ej ect ed the gr i evanc e as unt i m el y . Shor t l yther eaf t er , W i ggi ns fil ed a c o m p lai n t i n the D istri ct C o u rtall eg ing that H einz ’s de cisi o n to d isco n ti n u e third s hi fts ani t at i on oper at i ons vi ol at ed the t erm s of the col l ect i ve bar gai ni ng agr eement , and th a t L o c a l 5 6 b re a c h e d its d u tyo f f a ir re p re se n tatio n b yse c re tlya g re e in g w ith H e in z to el i m i nat e uni on j obs . T he D i s tr i ctC our tcons trued the compl ai ntas as s ert i ng tw o fede r al cl ai m s : ( 1) agai ns tH ei nz underSect i on 301 of the LaborM anage m entR el at i ons A ct , 29 U . S. C . § 185; and ( 2) agai ns tL ocal 56 forvi ol at i ng the dutyof fa i rr epr es ent at i on i m pl i ed3

underthe N at i onal L aborR el at i ons A ct . T he D i s tr i ctC our tgr ant ed the mot i ons for sum m aryj ud gm ent fi l ed b yL ocal 56, H ei nz, and M cN eece, and den i ed W i gg i ns’ cr ossm ot i on fors um m aryj udgm ent . T he D i s tr i ctC our tal s o di s m i s s ed the compl ai ntas agai ns tdefe ndant s A nthonyC i nagl i a and J ack Sw i ftbeca us e thos e part i es w er e not p ro p e rl ys e rv e d . W ig g in s n o w a p p e a ls . W e h av e jurisdicti o n u n d er 2 8 U . S . C . § 1 2 9 1 . W e e x erc ise p lena ryrev iew o v er a D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s gr antordeni al of s um m aryj udgm ent . See C art erv. M cG r ady , 292 F. 3d 152, 157 ( 3d C i r . 2002) . O urt as k i s t o det erm i ne w hetherthe r ecor d, w hen vi ew ed i n the l i ghtm os tfavor abl e t o t he nonmovi ng party , s how s thatther e i s no genui ne i s s ue of m at er i al fac tand thatthe movi ng partyi s ent i t l ed t o j udgm entas a mat t erof l aw . See F ED . R. C IV . P. 5 6 © ; N atale v . C am d en C o u n tyC o rr. F ac il ity , 3 1 8 F . 3 d 5 7 5 , 5 8 0 (3d C ir . 2003) . A partyoppos i ng s um m aryj udgm entm us tr es tupon m or e than the al l egat i ons r ai s ed i n the pl eadi ngs t o cr eat e a ge nui ne i s s ue of mat er i al fac t . See H ugh v. B ut l er C o u n tyF am il yY M C A , 4 1 8 F . 3 d 2 6 5 , 2 6 7 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). W e a g re e w ith th e D istric t C o u rt th a t W ig g in s’ c laim s a re b a rre d b e c a u se h e d id notexhaus tthe di s put e r es ol ut i on pr ocedur es s t i pul at ed i n the col l ect i ve bar gai ni ng agr eement . See V aca v. Si pes , 386 U . S. 171, 184- 85 ( 1967) ; B ul l ock v. D r es s el , 435 F. 3d 2 9 4 , 2 9 9 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 6 ). W ig g in s d id n o t ex h a u st h is c laim a g a in st H e in z b e c a u se h is g rie v a n c e c h a llen g in g th e c o m p a n y ’s d e c isio n to e lim in a te th e th ird sh if t w a s n o t ti m e ly fi l ed underthe col l ect i ve bar gai ni ng agr eement . See C arrv. Paci fi c M ar i t i m e A s s ’ n, 9044

F. 2d 1313, 1317 ( 9th C i r . 1990) ( ci t i ng R epubl i c St eel C orp. v. M addox, 379 U . S. 650, 652 ( 1965) ) . A r t i cl e X X I I I of the col l ect i ve bar gai ni ng agr eementbetw een H ei nz and L o c a l 5 6 s t a t e s th a tu n i o n e mp l o y e e s mu s ts u b mi tg r i e v a n c e s n o l a t e rth a n s e v e n ty - two hour s aft erthe cha l l enged e vent . W i ggi ns di d notcompl yw i th thi s r equi r ement , as he w ai t ed more than one mont h aft erl earni ng of H ei nz’ s deci s i on t o el i m i nat e the s hi ft b e f o r e f i l i n g a g r i e v a n c e c h a l l e n g i n g th i s d e c i s i o n . F u r th e r mo r e , Wi g g i n s h a s n o ts h o wn s uffi ci entgr ounds forexcus i ng hi s fai l ur e t o exhaus thi s cl ai m agai ns tH ei nz. See V aca , 3 8 6 U .S . at 1 8 5 -8 6 (n o tin g e x c e p tio n s to e x h a u stio n re q u ire m e n t). W ig g in s a ttem p ts to excus e hi s unt i m el yfi l i ng bynot i ng thathe made s ever al uns ucce s s ful att empt s t o cont act the uni on r epr es ent at i ve i m m edi at el yaft erl earni ng of H ei nz’ s deci s i on t o el i m i nat e the s hi ft . H ow ever , i ti s uncl earw hyW i ggi ns chos e t o pur s ue thi s cour s e of a ct i on i ns t ead of fi l i ng a gr i evanc e w i th hi s i m m edi at e s upervi s oratthe H ei nz pl anti n acc or dance w i th t he pr ocedur es out l i ned i n A r t i cl e X X I I I of the col l ect i ve bar gai ni ng agr eement . I n addi t i on, W i ggi ns has nots ubm i t t ed anyevi dence i n s uppor tof hi s as s ert i on thathe made r epea t ed a tte m p ts to c o n ta c t th e u n io n re p re s e n ta tiv e p ri o r t o f ilin g th e u n tim e ly g ri e v a n c e . W i ggi ns ’ cl ai m agai ns tL ocal 56 i s al s o unexhaus t ed bec aus e he ne verfi l ed a g r i e v a n c e a c c u s i n g u n i o n o f f i c i a l s o f c o l l u d i n g wi th Hei n z t o e l i mi n a t e u n i o n j o b s . To the ex t ent that W i gg i ns argues he sho uld be ex cused f rom exh aust i ng his cl ai m against L ocal 56 beca us e the uni on cannotbe trus t ed t o fai r l ypr oces s thi s gr i evanc e, w e r ej ect th is a rg u m e n t b e c a u s e s u c h a n a lle g a tio n is n o t s u p p o rt e d b ya n yth in g in th e re c o rd .W i ggi ns al s o ci t es t o A r t i cl e X X X I I I of the col l ect i ve bar gai ni ng agr eement , w hi ch 1 d e tails H e in z ’s o b lig a tio n to p ro v id e se v e ra n c e to laid o f f w o rk e rs. T h e re lev a n c e o f th is s ect i on t o t he i ns t ants ui ti s uncl earbeca us e i ti s undi s put ed thatH ei nz off er ed s ever ance to the em p loy ee s w h o w ere lai d o ff as a resu lto f th e c o m p an y ’s de cisi o n to en d the th ir d sa n itatio n sh if

t. 5 T her e i s no i ndi cat i on thatW i ggi ns even a t t empt ed t o s ubm i ta gr i evanc e r egar di ng the al l eged m i scond uct byun i on off i ci al s. E ven i f the cl ai m s w er e notdefa ul t ed, w e agr ee w i th the D i s tr i ctC our tthat W igg ins w o u ld n o t be a b le t o p rev ail o n their m erit s. W igg ins h as n o t sho w n that H einz ’s d e c is io n to e n d th e th ir d s a n ita tio n s h if t v io la te d th e c o lle c tiv e b a rg a in in g a g re e m e n t. A rt i cl e II I of the ag reem ent vest ed m anag em ent w i th au tho ri tyt o layoff em ploy ees, s ubj ectt o t he l i m i t at i ons pr ovi ded i n others ect i ons of the agr eement . T he onl yappar ent ar gum entadvanc ed byW i ggi ns i s thatH ei nz’ s deci s i on t o l ayoff uni on empl oy ees on the thi r d s ani t at i on s hi ftand r epl ace them w i th non- uni on empl oy ees vi ol at ed the nond iscri m ination p rov isi o n loca ted in A rt icl e IV o f th e c o ll ec ti v e b arg ainin g ag ree m en t. In th is p ro v isio n , H e in z a n d L o c a l 5 6 a g re e “ th a t th e re sh a ll b e n o d isc rim in a tio n in vi ol at i on of anys t at e, fede r al orl ocal l aw . ” W e r ej ectW i ggi ns ’ cl ai m thatH ei nz vi ol at ed A r t i cl e I V beca us e he ha s notci t ed t o anyauthor i tys how i ng thatthe company ’ s al l eged favor i t i s m of non- uni on w or ker s amount ed t o i l l egal di s cr i m i nat i on. M or eover , as not ed b yth e D istric t C o u rt, n o th in g in th e re c o rd su p p o rts W ig g in s’ c laim th a t H e in z e v e n tu a lly res t affed the thi rd sani t at i on shi ftw i th n on -uni on w orkers . 1 W e al s o agr ee w i th t he D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s anal y s i s of W i ggi ns ’ cl ai m thatL ocal 56d e n ied h im f a ir re p re se n tatio n . T o d e m o n stra te th a t L o c a l 5 6 b re a c h e d its d u tyo f f a ir r e p r e s e n t a t i o n , W i g g i n s m u s ts h o w th a tth e u n i o n ’ s c o n d u c tt o w a r d h i m w a s a rb i tr a ry, di s cr i m i nat ory , ori n bad fa i th. See R i l eyv. L ett erC arr i er s L ocal N o. 380, 668 F. 2d 224, 228 ( 3d C i r . 1981) . T he r ecor d cont ai ns onl yuns uppor t ed al l egat i ons thatr epr es ent at i ves f ro m L o c a l 5 6 c o llu d e d w ith H e in z to e lim in a te u n io n jo b s. T h e D istric t C o u rt c o rre c tly det erm i ned thatthes e s t at ement s , s t andi ng al one, ar e i ns uffi ci entt o w i ths t and the mot i ons fors um m aryj udgm ent . See M as yv. N ew J er s eyT r ans i tR ai l O per at i ons , I nc. , 790 F. 2d 3 2 2 , 3 2 8 (3d C ir . 1 9 8 6 ). F in a lly, w e re

je c t th e c la im s o f

p ro c e d u ra l e rr o r t h a t W ig g in s a s s e rt s o n a p p e a l. F o r th e f o re g o in g re a so n s, w e w ill a f f irm th e ju d g m e n t o f

th e D istric t C o u rt.

6