AL PA is the collective ba rg ainingrepr esentative of pi lots employ ed by NWA; it i s a labor 1 org anization under the Railway L abor A ct (“ RLA”) , 45 U.S.C. §§ 151-188. UNITED STAT ES DIS TRICT COURT F OR THE D ISTRIC T OF CO LU M BIA

) F IELD M c CO NN ELL , ) ) P laintif f, )

) v. ) Civil Action No. 08-1600 (RMC) ) AIR LINE P ILOT S’ ASSO CIATION, IN TER NA TIO NA L , ) ) ) Defendan t. ) )
M EM OR

AN DU M OP IN ION PilotField Mc Connell alleg es that the Air L ine Pilots ’ Association, International (“A L PA”) bre ache d its duty of fa ir repr esentation by

failingto repre sent him properly in the g rieva nce pr ocess with his forme r employer, N orthwest Airlines, Inc. (“NWA”). ALPA filed a 1 motion to di smiss: (1) f

or fa ilure to state a c laim; (2) as time-ba rre d under the statute of limit ations; and (3) due to insufficient ser vice of proce ss. The motion will be denied without prejudice
. On

a mot ion to d ism iss , a

c ourt mus t tr e at th e c omp la int ’s fa c tua l a lle g atio ns — including mixed questions of law and f act — a s true, dra

wingall rea sonable infe renc es in the plaintiff’s fa

vor. Macharia v. U

nited States , 334 F.3d 61, 64, 67 ( D.C. Cir. 2003). C o u rt s are he s i t a nt t o g r a nt a mot i on t o d i s mi s s ba s e d o n t he s t a t ut e of l i mi t a t i ons un l e s s t he f a c t s t ha t g i ve ris e to th e d e f

e n s e are cle a r o n th e f

a c e o f th e co m p la in t. S m it h -H a yn ie v. D ist. o

f C o lum b ia , 15 5 F . 3 d 5 7 5 , 5 7 7 -78 ( D . C
. C ir
. 1 9 9 8 ).An AME doctor is an ae ro medica l doctor ce rtified by the Fe dera l Aviation Administ ration 2 to determine pilots’ fitness for flying. Compl. ¶ 12.

-2- He re , M r. Mc Conne ll h a s st ate d a c la im f or br e a c h o f t

he duty of fa ir repr esentation but the Court has insufficient fa cts to determine whether the statute of limitations pa sse d b e fo re he fi le d s uit , a s A L PA c la ims . M r. Mc Conne ll a lle g e s th at N WA r e qu ir e d h im t o underg o a medica l exam pursuant to the collective ba rg ainingagree ment. The c ollective barg ainingagree ment provided:

I f the Company

has re asonable cause to believe that a pilot has develope d a medica l impairment to his abilit y to perfor m his duti es betwee n the routine medic al examinations required by the Fe dera l Av iatio n A dmi nis tr atio n ( F AA ), the Com pa ny may re qu ir e sa id pil ot t o s ub mit

to a me dic a l e xami natio n f

ro m a no n- AM E 2 medical doc tor chosen by the Company
. Compl. ¶ 8 (ref

err ing to CB A § 15, ¶ B .1). Mr. McConne ll objected, asse rtingthat NWA lacked
re a so na ble c a us e to o rd e r s uc h a

me dic a l e xam, and

he so ught a ssi sta

nc e fr om A L PA. Com

pl. ¶ 9. AL PA alleg edly

provided no he lp. Id . D e sp ite his ob je c tio n, Mr . M c Conne ll c omp lie d w ith the orde red me dical exam. He pa ssed but he wa s ref err ed for examination by

a psychiatrist, a psychiatrist “known” to disqualify pilots. Id . ¶ 18. He did not attend the appointment with the psychiatrist bec ause, he claims, he wa s never notified of the a

ppointment. Id . ¶ 20. Since he missed the appointment, Mr. McConnell was “ constructively” discha rg ed on Mar ch 13, 2007. Id . ¶ 30 . O n Jun e 7, 20 07 , th e ALPA M inn e a po lis /St. Pa

ul F ie ld O ff

ic e dir e c te d M r. Mc Conne ll to f ile a g ri e va nc e . H e did

so , b ut a g a in A L PA a lle g e dly fa ile d to take e ff

e c tiv e a c tio n o n h is g rieva nce. Id . ¶ 10 . O n Se pte mbe r 1 7, 20 08 Mr . M c Conne ll f ile d th e Com

pla int a lle g ingALPA brea ched its duty

of fa ir repr esentation by

failingto pursue his g rieva nce a g ainst NWA. Duty of fa ir re pr e se ntatio n c la ims ma de un de r t he RLA a re su bje c t to a six- month-3-

statute of limitations originally found in Section 10(b) of the National L abor Relations Act (“N L RA”), 29 U.S.C. § 160(b). De lCo ste llo v . I nt’ l B hd . o f Te am ste rs , 462 U.S. 151, 169-72 (1983) ( six -month limi tations period found in the NLRA applies to hy brid suit ag ainst the union
and the e mpl oye r) ; see also Ge orge v. Local 639 , 1 0 0 F . 3 d 1 0 0 8 , 1 0 1 4 ( D . C. Ci r . 1 9 9 6 ) ( s ixmonth s tatut e of

lim itatio ns a

pp lie s to su its wh e re on ly the un ion is s ue d) . In a

duty of fa ir
repr e se ntatio n c a se su c h a s th is, the statut e of lim itatio ns be g an r

unnin gwh e n M r. Mc Conne ll knew or should have known that AL PA had stopped pursuinghis gr ievanc e. Cephas v. MVM , Inc. , 5 2 0 F. 3 d

4 8 0 , 4 8 8 (D
. C
. C i r. 2 0 0 8 ) ( ci t i n g Sanders v. Hughe s, Aircraft Co. , 26 F.3d 132 (T a ble ), 19 94 WL22 79 71 (9 th C ir . 1 99 4) ); see also W atkins v. Commc’

n W orkers of Am. , 7 36 F. Supp. 1156, 1160 (D.D.C. 1990) (timeliness is measure d from whe n the employee kne w or should have known of

the last ac tion taken by

the union which constituted the bre ach of duty of fair r epre sentation).

The duty of fa ir repr esentation claim in this case is based on ALPA’s alleg ed failure to pursue Mr. Mc Connell’s g rieva nce f iled on or af

ter June 7, 2007. Mr. McConnell had six mo nth s f

ro m th e tim e he kn e w o r s ho uld have kn own th at A L PA s top pe d p ur su inghis g rieva nce to br ing suit. The ple ading s do not indicate whe n that was; thus, the Court cannot de te rm ine wh e the r a

statut e of lim itatio ns de fe ns e a

pp lie s. ALPA a lso se e ks dis mis sa l f or ins uf fi c ie nt s e rv ic e of

pr oc e ss. B e c a

us e ALPA i s an as so cia ti on , s ervi ce un der Fed eral Ru le o f C iv il P roce dure 4( h)( B) is requ ir ed. Ru le 4 (h) (B) authorizes service by

deliveringa copy

of the summons and complaint to an off icer , a mana g ing or g ener al ag ent, or a

nother a g ent authorized by appointment or by

law to re ceive service . Mr. McConnell attempted ser vice by cer tified mail, which wa s rec eived by an administrative-4-

employ ee of

AL PA, not by

an off icer , manag ing or

g ener al ag ent or a

n ag ent appointed to re ceive service . Thus, the Court will require Mr . McConnell to serve A L PA pursuant to Rule 4(h)(B ).

Acc ording ly , AL PA’s motion to di smiss [ Dkt. # 7] wil l denied without prejudice
. Mr. McConnell shall proper ly serve the Complaint and summons no l ater than April 6, 2009. A memorializing orde r ac companies this Memora ndum Opinion.

Date : Ma rc h 2 3, 20 09 /s/ ROSEMARY M. COL LYER Un i t edS t at es Di s tri ctJ u d ge