FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V E N T H C IR C U IT MARCH 9, 2006 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [PUBLIS H] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ _ N o. 04- 1659 6

____ ____ ____ _ D. C. Docket N o. 02-21417 -CV -CMA AMADEO BIANCHI, Plaintiff-Appellee, ve rs us RO A D WA Y E X PRE SS , I N C. , af or ei gn co rp or at ion , D ef en dant- Appe llant, IN TE RNA TI ON AL BRO TH ERHO OD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, AND WA RE H O U SE MEN , L O CA L 390 , a la bor or ganiz at ion , D ef en dant.

____ ____ ____ Appeal f rom the United State s District Court fo r the S outhe rnD istri ct

of F lor ida

____ ____ ____ (M ar ch 9, 200 6) Be fo re H U L L , MA RC U S an d H IL L , Ci rc uit Jud ge s.2

PE R CU RIA M: A ft er thi rty -s ix y ears of

e m plo ym en t a s atr ac tor -tra ile r dr ive r fo r de fe ndant Roadway Express, Inc. (Roadw ay ), plaintiff Am adeo Bianchi (Bianchi) w as term inated. A fter hearing, a grie vance panel upheld hi s term ination . Ther eafte r, Bi an ch i br ough t a

hy br id a ct ionund er

S ec tio n 30 1 of

the L ab or

Mana ge m en t Re la tio ns A ct , a lso kno w n a s th e T af t- H ar tle y A ct , 29 U . S. C. §18 5( a) (1 947) (h y br id S ec tio n 30 1 c la im ), a ga ins t e m plo y er Ro adw ay , f

or br ea chof

apr ovi sio n of a collective bar gaining agree m ent (CBA ), and against the International Br oth er hood of T eam ste rs , L oc al 390 ( the U nio n) , f or br ea chof

it s du ty of f ai r re pr es en ta tio n ( D FR ). B ianc hi c la im ed that the U nio n, thr oughit s bu sin es s a ge nt, Don Marr (Mar r), m ishandl ed his grievance of w rongful term ination , am ong o ther thi ngs, ba se d onpol iti ca l and p er sona l anim osi ty be tw ee n M ar

r an d B ianc hi and i n retaliation for Bianchi’ s m em bership in Team sters for a De m ocratic U nion (T DU ), a d is si de nt Uni on org an iz at io n. A ft er tr ia l, aj ur

y f ound that R oa dw ay

ha d f ir ed Bi an ch i i n vi olatio n of

it s C B A . I tf

o u n dt h a tt h e Un i o n , t h r o u g h M a rr , h a dr e p r e s e n t e dB i a n c h i a r b i t r a r i l y, dis cr im inator ily , a nd/ or

in ba d f ai th at B ianc hi’ s gr ie vanc e he ar ing in br ea chof it s D FR . O n a

ppe al , Ro adw ay

c ont en ds tha t the j ur

y ’ s f ind ing of U nio n br ea chis not supp orte d by

the e vid en ce . R oa dw ay

c la im s th at

Bi an ch i, w ithf

ull kno w le dge ofI f so, the jury verdic t cannot stand a

nd we ne ed not re ach the issue of whe ther or not the 1 introduction of ce rtain evide nce w as pre judicial to Roadway ’s ca se and whether the district court a bu se d it s d isc re tio n in

no t g ra nti ngRoa dw ay

a ne w tri a l. 3 al l the r el ev an t f

ac ts, w ai ve d th e ar gum en t tha t M ar r re pr es en te d hi m

in ba d f ai th and with bias because Bianchi chose not to raise this iss ue before the grie vance pane l i tse lf

, be fo re he r ec ei ve d an a dve rs e ru lin g f ro m the pane l. 1 W e ag re e w ithRo adw ay . B as ed on the f oll ow ing dis cu ssi on, w e co nc lud e that, by r em ai nin g si le nt and b y

f ai lin g to r ai se the iss ue of ba d f ai th/ bia s a t hi s pane l he ar ing , Bi an ch i ha s w ai ve d hi s r igh t t o r ai se the iss ue in his c la im a ga ins t Ro adw ay a nd o n a ppe al . W e va cate the j ur y ’ s aw ar d and g rant j udgm en t a s a mat t e r o f l a wf o r R o a d w a y. I. FACTUAL BACKG ROUND T he r el ev an t f

ac ts are the se . B ianc hi h ad w orke d f or Ro adw ay

f or thi rty -s ix y ears . H e ha d be enam em be r of the U nio n si nc e 1959 . B ianc hi a lso se rv ed a s a Uni on st eward , vo lu nt eeri ng to aid ot he r Uni on m em be rs . Bi an ch i w as ase as one d U nio n m an , a ct ive in U nio n m ee tin gs and U nio n pol iti cs , w el l ve rs ed

in the CB A , a nd w el l kn ow n f or he lpi ng o the r U nio n m em be rs . Bian ch i was als o a m em be r of TDU. M arr w as t h e U n i o n ’s b u s i n es s ag en tfo r R o ad wa y. He wa s Bi an ch i ’s U nio n r ep re se ntativ e at

the pane l gr ie vanc e he ar ing . T he tw o m enha d ahis tor y ofTo summarize the political animosity , Bia nchi claims that Mar

r complaine d to other 2 barg ainingunit members that B ianchi wa s wastingUnion funds by runningfor of

fice ; that Marr filed ele ction protests ag ainst Bianc hi for eng ag ing in be havior in which Ma rr himself wa s eng ag ing; that Ma

rr be rate d and denigrate d Bia nchi to other ba

rg ainingunion members; that Marr made f un of B ianchi and his supporte rs; that Marr ripped B ianchi’s “ palm car ds” fr om voters’ ha nds and threw

them in the g arba g e; that Marr destroy ed and disc arde d Bia nchi’s campa ign materials; that Marr constantly

ref err ed to B ianchi as a

“motherf ucker ”; and that Ma

rr scre amed at Bianc hi to leave a n outdoor lunch ar ea a s he wa s in “opposition country .” To summarize the persona l animosity , Bia nchi claims that Mar

r re peate dly

hara ssed 3 Bia nchi by makingfac es and by

y elling obsc enities at him; that Marr c onstantly mocked Bia nchi’s political supporter s; that Marr told B ianchi many times to his face that he did not like him ; th at Ma

rr g e ne ra lly re fe rr e d to B ianc hi a s “ that mo the rf uc ke r” ; and

that Ma rr wo uld te ll other Union membe rs that B ianchi wa s an idiot in the way he helpe d them with their Union g ri e va nc e s. 4 pol iti ca l anim osi ty

w ithe ac h othe r. B ianc hi r ana ga ins t M ar r fi ve ti m es f

or 2 Union office and on ce f

or delegate to the International Brotherhood of Team sters co nve nti on, los ing to Marr a ll six ti m es . I n a ddi tio n to the ir pol iti ca l r iva lr ie s, it
w as w el l kn ow n th at

Marr a nd B ianc hi h ad

ope n and o ngoi ng p er sona l c onf lic ts with eac h other. O ver the y ears, Bianchi filed severa l com plaints agains t Marr 3
an d t he Uni on lea de rs hi p. Bianchi wa s fired w hen Roadway determ ined that he had helpedanother em plo y ee , I ssa ah“ G er om e” D an ie ls ( D an ie ls) f ile af ra udul en t i nj ur

y r ep ort. D an ie ls w as a lso te rm inate d. R oa dw ay c la im s th ey

w er e both f

ir ed f or dis hone sty an d f ra ud i n c onne ct ionw iththe inj ur y r ep ort. R oa dw ay

c ont en ds tha t B ianc hi ins tr uc te d D an ie ls t o c la im

a n of f- the -j ob i nj ur

y a s an on -the -j ob i nj ur

y , a nd t oThe de tails of the injury are not releva

nt here . 4 Marr alleg edly spoke to Danie ls prior to his panel hea ring , continuing to spe ak ver y 5 dis pa ra g ing ly a bo ut B ianc hi. Marr

tol d D anie ls that if

Da nie ls t e sti fi e d th at B ianc hi h a d to ld h im to falsify the date of

injury put on the form, then Da niels would g et off w ithout a hear ing. When Daniels re fused, Ma

rr sa id that Daniels had “ pissed off” a Roadwa y officia l and would now have to g o f or wa rd wi th a he ari ng . D ur ingDa

nie ls’ he ari ng , M arr

bla me d B ianc hi f

or the mix- up wi th the date of

injury put on the forms. He sug g ested that, while Ma rr g ave D aniels prope r advic e, B ianc hi h a d c on fu se d h im. Th e pa ne l ov e rt ur ne d D anie ls’ te rm inatio n a nd re ins tate d h im. 5 f a l s i f y t h e d a t e o f

t h e i n j u ry o n t h e f

o rm. 4 Bo th B ianc hi and D an ie ls c la im it w as a sim ple m isunde rs tandi ng a s to the da te of the inj ur y put on the f orm . B othc la im

that the inj ur

y did in fa ct oc cur on th e job . Each m an fil eda gr ie va nc e reg ard in g h is di sc ha rg e. Marr r ep re se nte d e ac h m anse parate ly a s th ei r gr ie vanc e pr oc ee din gs advanced from

the local level to the panel hearing level. T he grievance panel w as co m pr ise d of tw o U nio n m em

be rs a nd tw o R oa dw ay

r ep re se ntativ es . D an ie ls’ gr ie vanc e w as he ar d th e day be fo re Bi an ch i’ s. 5 Prior to Bianchi’ s hearing date, a co-w orker inform ed Bianchi that Marr wa s onlypretending to help him . Bianchi later testified at trial that he had been unc om fo rt ab le w ithMarr r ep re se nti ng h im , be lie vin g th at Marr w as onl y “ ac tin g” as tho ugh he w as r ep re se nti ng h im . S til l, a t the he ar ing le ve l, Bi an ch i di d no t a sk fo r a d iff eren t Un io n re pr es en ta ti ve . Bi an ch i c ont en ds tha t M ar r’ s pr ep ar at ionf

or his pane l he ar ing le ft

himAt the time of the pa nel hea ring , Bia nchi was a lso awar e of the fac t that he did not have 6 a g ood relationship wit h one of the panel membe rs but said nothing to the pa nel. B ianchi stated that the pane l “still had two union men and two company men, that if they

hear d the evidenc e they would vote in my

favor .” Immediately

afte r re ceivingthe adve rse pa nel re sult, Bianchi f

iled a c omp la int

wi th t he Un ion c la imi ngthat th e tw o U nio n p ane l me mbe rs we re bia se d a g a ins t hi m and had uphe ld his termination solely due to his Union politi cs.

6 worr ied about Marr’ s advocacy . Marr allegedly told anot her w orker that he w as m er el y “ go[ ing ] thr oughthe m oti ons” of ge tti ng “ that m oth er fu ck er Bi an ch i hi s j ob back.” Marr a llegedly ref used to call live witnesses, instead choosin g to read state m en ts i nto the r ec or d. B ianc hi c au ght a nd f ixe d se ve ra l of

Marr ’ s e rr or s in preparation of an exhibit packet. I n additio n, Mar r allegedly

ref used to pu sh for a j oin t he ar ing w ithD an ie ls. At the c lose of his grievance panel hearing, Bianchi was asked by a panel
m em ber w hether or not he had presented all of his evidence. B ianchi responded that he was not fully

prepare d and wished that he had had liv e w itnesses, but that he ha d pr es en te d e ve ry

thi ng i n hi s f

av or . Whe n th e pane l m em be r as ke d B ianc hi
w he the r Marr

ha d r ep re se nte d hi m

pr ope rl y a nd f ull y , Bi an ch i r ep lie d, “ I be lie ve Don Marrrep res en te d m e p ro pe rly andful ly.” Bianchi never expressed to the panel any reser vations that he m ay

have had ab out Marr ’ s bi as es or

e ve n th ose of

a ny pane lis t. O n c ro ss e xa m inatio n a t tri al ,

6 Bi an ch i wa s p re s s ed o n wh et h eri twa s t ru e o r n o tt h at h e w as h ap p y wi t h Ma rr ’s re pr es en ta tio n. H e adm itt ed that he li ed

to the pane l. B ianc hi c la im ed that he did7

not br ing up h is c onc er

ns a bout Marr ’ s bi as to the pane l be ca use he did

not w an t to m ak e the pane l m ad . B ianc hi t es tif ie d: “ I fi gur ed

the re is no w ay

the y a re goi ng to tak e m y job fro m m e. I fig ur e I wo ul d ju st let it[th e b ia s] go .” T he pane l up he ld B ianc hi’ s te rm inatio n.

II . PROCEDURAL HIS TORY T he re af te r Bi an ch i f

ile d hi s hy

br id S ec tio n 30 1 c la im

a ga ins t R oa dw ay

a nd the U nio n inf

ed er al dis tr ic t c ourt. B ef or e tr ia l, Ro adw ay

f ile d am oti on in l im ine cl ai m ing that B ianc hi h ad w ai ve d hi s arg um en t tha t M ar r w as bia se d a ga ins t hi m and had fixed the panel grievance hearing, by not raising th is with the grievance panel itself. The district court denied the m otion and the case proce eded for j ury tr ia l. T he j ur

y he ld f or Bi an ch i a ga ins t bo th R oa dw ay a nd the U nio n, f

ind ing : ( 1) th atRo ad way

ha d t erm in at edBia nc hi wit ho ut jus t ca us e in vi ol at io n o f th e CBA; (2 ) t h at t h e U n i o n h ad b re ac h ed i t s DF R b y M arr’s h an d l i n g o f B i an ch i ’s grievance procee ding s arbitrarily , discrim inatorily and/or in bad faith; and (3) that the Union’ s breach m aterially aff ected the outcom e of Bianchi’ s grievance he ari ng . Ro adw ay the n f ile d am oti on f

or j udgm en t a s am atte r of

law , r en ew ing it s co nte nti on tha t B ianc hi h ad w ai ve d hi s ba d f

ai th/ bia s arg um en t, or , in theAlthough the Union was initially a par ty to this appeal as we ll, it wit hdrewfrom the 7 appea l via a motion to dism iss its appea l with prejudice. A s the Union’s bre ach is a n element of Roadway ’s liability , Roadway can c halleng e the jury

finding without the Union as a pa rty on appea l. 8 al te rn at ive , am oti on f

or ne wtr ia l. T he dis tr ic t c ourt de nie d th e m oti ons w ith out ex p l an at i o n an den t er ed ju d g m en tfo r B i an ch i i n ac co rd an ce wi t h t h e ju ry’s ve rd ic t. T his appe al f

oll ow s. 7 III. ISSU ES P RES ENT ED A . Whe the r the dis tr ic t c ourt e rr ed by de ny ing Ro adw ay ’ s m oti on f or j udgm ent as a m atter of law bec ause Bianchi had wa ived his o bje ction of bad fa ith/bi as by

f ai lin g to r ai se it

be fo re his gr ie vanc e pane l, a nd the re fo re the evidence at trial w as insufficient to sup port a j ury finding th at the U nion had breached its D FR? B. Whe the r the dis tr ic t c ourt a buse d it s di sc re tio n by

r ef usi ng t o gr an t Ro adw ay ’ s m oti on f

or ane wtr ia l one vid en tiary gr ound s? IV. STA ND AR

DS OF RE VIEW A. Judgm ent as a Matter of L aw A dis tr ic t c ourt’ s de nia l of ade fe ndant’ s m oti on f

or j udgm en t a s am atte r of lawis re vie w ed de novo , ap pl y in g t he same leg al st an da rdas t he di st ric t co ur t.9

See D ade County, F

la. v. Alv arez , 124 F . 3d 1 380, 138 3 ( 11th C ir . 199 7) . T he sufficiency

of a hy brid Section 301 p laintiff’ s DFR allegations is a quest ion of law that i s a lso r ev ie w ed de novo . Se e H arr is v
. Sc hw erm an T

ruc ki ng C

o. , 668 F . 2d 1204 , 120 6 ( 11th C ir . 198 2) . Ar uli ng o n th e iss ue of

w ai ve r of

a rb itr at ionis al so re vie w ed de novo . See Iv ax Corp. v. B. Braun of Am erica, I nc. , 286 F . 3d 1 309, 13 16 (11 th Cir . 20 02 ). B. Motion for NewTr ial W e re vie wthe dis tr ic t c ourt’ s de nia l of am oti on f

or ne wtr ia l f

or abuse of di sc ret io n. See A d-Vantage Telephone Directory Consultan ts, Inc. v. GT E D ire ctori es Co rp. , 37 F. 3d 14 60, 1463 (11t h Cir. 1994 ). V. D ISCU SSION A. Judgm ent as a Matter of L aw 1. W aiver a. Bianchi’ s Contentio ns in General and as to W aiver Bi an ch i c la im s th at

Marr ’ s ho sti lity

tow ar ds h im

c au se d M ar

r to r ep re se nt him a t hi s gr ie vanc e pane l he ar ing in ba d f ai th and i n an arb itr ar

y a nd di sc riminat ory

m an ne r. Se e Te dfo rd v
. P ea bodyCo al C o. , e t al
. , 533 F . 2d 9 52, 957 (5 th C ir . 197 6) ( ci tin g Vaca v. Sipes , 386 U . S. 171 , 190 ( 1967 )) ; Black v. Ry der/P. I. E. Nationwide, Inc. , 15 F . 3d 5 73, 577 , 583 -8 4 ( 6thCi r. 199 4) ; Thomas v.Bia nchi points to eleven instance s of bad f aith in the rec ord: (1) that Marr c ance led a 8 meetingwith another f

reig ht company

beca use he ha d to “g o throug h the motions of ge tting that mot he rf uc ke r B ianc hi” his job ba c k; ( 2) that Ma rr atte mpt e d to c onvin c e Da nie ls t o b lame Bia nchi for the mistaken date on D aniels’ notice of injury form, in exchang e for

resolving Daniels’ grieva

nce in his favor, eliminating the nee d for a hear ing; ( 3) that Mar

r instructed Da nie ls t o li e to t

he g ri e va nc e pa ne l [a bo ut B ianc hi’ s invo lve me nt]; (4 ) t hat Ma rr re fu se d to enter tain Bia nchi’s re quest that his and Danie ls’ g rieva nces be hear d toge ther; eve n though the y arose from the same fa ctual cir cumstance s and we re he avily interdepe ndent, Roadwa

y ’s Ter minal Manag er w anted them he ard se parately ; (5) that Mar r re fused to ca ll live witnesses despite the fac t that Bianc hi reque sted that he do so, instead c hoosing to re ad witness stateme nts into t he rec ord; (6) that Marr le ft it to Bianchi to do all the pr epar ation work for the hea ring ; (7) that Mar

r twice put B ianchi’s grieva nce pa cket tog ether

incorre ctly ; (8) that Mar

r neve r questioned B ianchi about a c ritical telephone conver sation in which Danie ls informed B ianchi that he ha d been i n j ure d o nth e j o b ; (9 ) t h atM arr b l am edBi an ch i fo r D an i el s ’ c o n d u ctd uri n g Da n i el s ’ h ea ri n g; (10) that whe n Bia

nchi attempted to put into the rec ord evide nce f rom Danie ls’ hear ing, a

Union pa ne lis t st op pe d h im f

ro m do ingso , a

nd Ma rr did no t ob je c t; a nd (1 1) that Ma

rr ma de a fa lse statement to the pane l claiming that he did not know that Daniels ha d told Bianc hi that he had been injure d on the job. 10 U nit ed P arc el Se rv ic e, I

nc . , e t al
. , 890 F . 2d 9 09, 923 ( 7thCi r. 198 9) . B ianc hi co nt en ds hi s h eari ng was a sh am . Se e M arge tta v . P am P am Co rp. , 501 F . 2d 1 79, 18 0 (9 th Cir . 19 74 ) (u ni on bre ach es DFR whe n p ro ceed in g i s es se nt ia ll y a sh am ). Bianchi claim s that the jury verdict is we ll supp orted by the subst antial reco rdev id en ce an d t ha t Ro ad way is no t en ti tl edto jud gm en t as a m at te r of law. 8 As was di sc us se d a t o ral arg um en t, Bi an ch i cl ai m s es se nt ia ll y th atMarr“ la y

do wn on the job.” Bi an ch i arg ue s th at

the e vid en ce m

ust be c onsi de re d inthe tot al ity of the ci rcu m st an ces . Se e, e . g. , P ark er v . Co nnor

s St ee l C o. , 855 F . 2d 1 510, 151 9- 20 (1 1thCi r. 198 8) . H e co nte nds it w as c le ar that M ar r w as a ct ing in his ow n se lfB ianc hi d ist inguis he s h is c a se fr om Ha rri s , 668 F.2d at 1204, cited by Roadway , by 9 arguing that the only

issue in Ha rri

s was whe ther the union re prese ntative had r epre sented the g rieva nt in a perf

unctory manner . There was no sug g estion in Ha rri s that th e re wa s d e lib e rate obfuscation in the presentation of the g rieva nt’s case to the panel by

the Union re prese ntative, or that there was a

history of per sonal and political animosity betwee n the two men. 11 in te res t, ra th er t ha n i n B ia nc hi ’s in te res t, dur in g t he gri ev an ce p ro ces s. See O oley
v. Sc hw itz er

D iv
. , H ouse hold M

fg. , I nc . e t al
. , 961 F. 2d 12 93, 1303 (7th Cir. 1992 )( se lf

-p ro te ct ion ist

m oti ve s are not

appr opr ia te f

or f idu ci ar ie s and c onst itu te suf fi ci en t e vid en ce that the U nio n a ct ed in ba d f ai th) ; see also Schoo nover v. Co nsol ida te d F

re igh tw ay

s C orp. of D elaw are, e t al
. , 147 F. 3d 49 2, 496 (6th Cir. 1998 ); Alice a v. Suffi eld Poultry, I nc. , 902 F . 2d 1 25, 132 -3 3 ( 1st Ci r. 199 0) (m isrepresentations byunion repre sentative can am ount to arbitrary conduct). Bi an ch i l ike ns h is c as e to A ch ill i v
. J ohn J. Ni sse n B ak ing Co
. , e t al
. , 989 F. 2d 56 1 (1st Cir. 1993 ). T he A ch ill i c ourt up he ld a f ind ing of ba d f ai th a ga ins t a 9 U nio n inahy

br id S ec tio n 30 1 c as e. T he pla int if f in A ch ill i c ite d anum

be r of pie ce s of e vid en ce ind ic at ive of

ba d f ai th, inc lud ing that hi s un ionr ep re se ntativ e in te nt io na ll y

refu se d t o p res en t ce rta in ev id en ce t o t he pa ne l. A ch ill i , 989 F. 2d at 56 3- 64 . In order to prove that this refusal to present certa in evidence was not a D FR br ea ch , the U nio n in A ch ill i poi nte d ou t tha t the pla int if f co uld ha ve sim ply pr es en te d t he m is si ng ev id en ce h im se lf. Id
. at 564. T he court, through then-Chief12

Judg e Br ey er , he ld tha t “ [t ] he dis tr ic t c ourt c oul d r ea sona bly f ind . . . that the L oc al ’ s pr es sur e, a lon g w ithA ch ill i’ s de pe nde nc e uponhis r ep re se ntativ e at the he ar ing , m ak e his f

ai lur e to v olunte er

thi s in fo rm at ionund er standa ble , ind ee d, le ss than purely

volun tary , and, theref

ore insufficient to absolv e the L ocal of causal responsib ility .” Id . Bianchi onlyspends two-and-a-half pages in his answer brief on the subjec t of waiv er. He cl ai m s wai ve r is no t p res en t fo r two reas on s. Bi an ch i f ir st c ont en ds tha t the re is no w ai ve r pr es en t i n hi s c as e be ca use his fe ar that he w oul d “ m ak e the uni on p ar t of the pane l m ad ” ex cu se d hi m f ro m br ing ing up the bia s is sue a t hi s he ar ing . H e cl ai m s he ha d no r ea son to b el ie ve that the panel was “ fixed” prior to the date of the hear ing. Bianchi ar gues that, at be st, he te sti fi ed

that he ha d so m e tr ep idatio n a bout apart ic ular pane lis t be ca use he

“ use d to be Ro adw ay ’ s la bor m an. . . m e an d hi m

ne ve r got

a lon g go od. ” Bi an ch i al so c ont en ds tha t the pr es en ce of that part ic ular pane lis t di d no t c au se him to believe that he could no t get a fa ir hearing. Instead, he testified that “ [w ] e still had tw o un ionm ena nd tw o c om pany m en , [ an s so I tho ught ] that i f the y he ar d th e ev id en ce t he y

wou ldvo te in m

y fav or .” Bi an ch i’ s se co nd r ea son that w ai ve r is n ot p re se nt i n hi s c as e is b ec au se he d i dn o tr e a l i z e M a rr ’s b a df a i t h u n t i l i t“d a w n e do n h i m” aft er he lost the panelAs Bia nchi’s deposition was put in the re cord a s an exhibitto Roadway ’s motion for 10 summary judgme nt, it was never

admitted at trial and c an only be examined in the context of waiver , not sufficienc y

of the e vidence . 13 he ar ing . Whe n a ske d a t tri al w ha t m ad e him be lie ve that he did

not ge t a f ai r he ar ing , Bi an ch i po int ed

to Marr ’ s c ondu ct

a t the he ar ing . H e adm itt ed his su sp ic io n, t ha t, in h ind

sig ht , he f el t tha t the pr oc ee din g ha d be enf ixe d f ro m the be gin nin g. B ianc hi c la im s th at thi s su spi ci on “ re

fle ct s an app re ci ati on o

f e ve nts wh ic h fo llo we d th e P ane l he ari ng a nd d aw ne d on [hi m

] onl y aft er he sat dow n, th ou gh t a bo ut

it , an d p ut it al l t og ethe r . . . .” b. Roadw ay ’ s Contentio ns as to W aiver Ro adw ay a rg ue s th at

Bi an ch i w ai ve d hi s ba d f ai th arg um en t by

f ai lin g to ra ise it w iththe gr ie vanc e pane l i tse lf . R oa dw ay

c ont en ds tha t a ll the f

ac ts r el ev an t to the iss ue of

ba d f ai th/ bia s w er e known to Bi an ch i a t the ti m e of the he ar ing , a nd that he c an not

sit m ute a nd l at er

obj ec t t o an a dve rs e ru lin g onthat ba sis . H is sil en ce c onst itu te s aw ai ve r of the obj ec tio n. In i t s at t emp tt o es t ab l i s h Bi an ch i ’s wa i v er , R o ad wa y ci t es t o Bi an ch i ’s de posi tio n inw hic h he a dm its that he be lie ve d th at his he ar ing w as f

ixe d f ro m the be gin nin g. I t a lso hig hli ght s th at Bi an ch i f

ile d apr ote st t o th e pr oc ee din g, 10 cl ai m ing that the U nio n pane l m em be rs w er e pol iti ca lly

bia se d a ga ins t hi m , on the s a me d a y o f

b u ta f t e r t h e a d v e r s e d e c i s i o n , d e mo n s t r a t i n g t h a tB i a n c h i h a da l w a ys14

thou ght hi s hearing was f ixed and m erely

held that issu e as his trum p card, for later as se rt ionin the e ve nt o f ana dve rs e de ci sio n. On the issue of w aiver, Roadway relies principally

on a First Circ uit case, Early v. Eastern Transfer , 699 F . 2d 5 52 ( 1st Ci r. 198 3) . I n Earl

y , the F ir st C ir cu it co nsi de re d w he the r tw o hy br id S ec tio n 30 1 pl ai nti ff s c oul d arg ue ba d f

ai th b y the Union. I n uph oldin g summ ary j udgm ent for the defe ndant, the Earl ycourt ref

used to consid er the plaintiffs’ bad faith/bias argum ent because of the plaintiffs’ “ failure to h av e ra ise d th e iss ue of [ the uni on r ep re se ntativ e’ s] pur porte d bi as be fo re the j oint comm ittee.” Earl

y , 699 F . 2d a t 55 8. I n Earl y , the bia se d pe rs on w as auni on re pr es en ta tiv e on the pane l. The Early court determ ined that, “ [i] n the absence of exceptional ci rc um stanc es , w e w ill not e nte rt ai n ac la im

of pe rs ona l bi as w he re it

c oul d have be enbut w as not r ai se d a t the he ar ing to w hic h it appl ie s. T his is the a cc ep te d r ule in arbitration cases.” Id . ( ci tin g A m algam ate d M ea t C utt er s v . Cr oss B rothe rs Meat Packers, I

nc. , 518 F . 2d 1 113, 112 1 & n. 19 ( 3d C ir . 197 5) ; M orr is v
. W erne rContinent al, Inc. , 466 F . 2d 1 185, 118 9 ( 6thCi r. 197 2) ; Cook Industr ies, I nc. v . C
. Itoh C o. , 449 F. 2d 10 6, 107-08 (2d Cir. 1971) cert. denied , 405 U. S. 921 (197 2); Graphic Arts Int’l U

nion , L ocal 97-B v. Haddon Craft smen, Inc. , 489 F . Su

pp. 10 88 , 10 93 (M.D.Pa. 1 97 9) ).15

This principle has also been applied in a hy brid Section 301 case to a biased Uni on rep res en ta ti ve in Marr ’s po si ti on . Se e H azard v
. S. U

nio n C o. , 275 F. Su pp. 2d 2 14, 225 n. 13 ( D . R. I. 200 3) ( pla int if f w ai ve d hi s arg um en t tha t hi s Union representative w as biased against him “ because he knew of the alleged bias at the ti m e of

the a rb itr at iona nd f

ai le d to r ai se it

dur ing that pr oc ee din g” ). F ind ing no E le ve nthCi rc uit

c as e dir ec tly

on p oin t, Ro adw ay

a sks that w e fo llo wthe ratio na le of

the F ir st C ir cu it in Earl

ya nd the Rh ode I sland d istri ct c ourt i n H

azard on the iss ue of

w ai ve r pr es en t i n th is a

ppe al . 2. W ai ve r A na ly sis In the context of a hy

brid Section 301 cause of action, the Suprem e Court ha s e xpl ai ne d th at

c ourts s houl d “ not

und er ta ke to re vie wthe m er its ” of the underly ing grievances, “but sh oulddefer to the tribunal cho sen by the parties fi na lly to se ttl e the ir

dis put es . O the rw ise ple nary r ev ie wby

ac ourt of

the m er its
w oul d m ak e m eanin gle ss the pr ovi sio ns tha t the a rb itr at or ’ s de ci sio n is f ina l, f or in reality it would alm ost never be final.” Hines v. Anchor Motor Freight, Inc. , 424 U . S. 554 , 563 ( 1976 ) (i nte rn al quo ta tio n m ar ks o m itt ed ). I f a U nio n m em be r fa ils to u til iz e the gr ie vanc e pr oc ed ur e unde r the CB A to ai r his gr ie vanc es , the n a di st ric t co ur t s ho ul d n ot all ow h im to m ak e su ch arg um en ts forth e fi rs t t im e. See id . ( “ [U ] nle ss h e atte m

pte d to uti liz e the c ontra ct ua l pr oc ed

ur es f or se ttl ing his16

dispu te w ith his em

ploy er, his ind ependent sui t against the em ploy er in the D istrict Court would be dism issed.”). The bu rd en is on Ro ad way to pro ve waiv er. Se e e. g. , L am be rt v . T rav el er s F ire I ns. Co
. , 274 F. 2d 68 5, 687-88 (5th Cir. 1961). I n order to do this Roadway m us t s ho w th atBia nc hi ha d “ fu ll kn owl ed ge of t he fact ” u nd erl y in g h is bi as cla im . Se e M idd lese x M ut. I ns. Co
. v . L ev ine , 675 F . 2d 1 197, 120 4 ( 11th C ir . 198 2) (“ W aiver applies only

wher e a par

ty has acted w ith full kn owledge of the fa cts.”) ; but see University Com mons-U rban a, Ltd. v. Universal Constructo rs, Inc. , 304 F. 3d 1 331, 134 0- 41 ( 11th C ir . 200 2) ( fi ndi ng n o w ai ve r of the a rg um en t tha t the ar bitrator w as bia se d w he re the a rb itr at or did not dis cl ose a ll of

the inf orm at ion revealing the “ extensive nature” of the rele vant interactions su ggestin g bias). Mos t c ourts s ugge st, how ev er , that, w he re the bia s is appare nt e noug h, waiv er wi ll oc cu r. Se e Uni te d S te elwo rk er s o f Amer ic a L oc al

19 13 v. Uni on R. Co
. , 648 F . 2d 9 05, 913 ( 3d C ir . 198 1) ( “ Whe n th e re as ons supp ortin g an ob j ec tio n ar e known be fo re hand, aparty m ay not w ai t t o m ak e anobj ec tio n to the qualifications o f a B oard m em ber until after an unfavorable award has been
m ad e. ”) ; H

azard , 275 F. Supp.2d at 225 n .13. This interpretation is the betterre as one d vi ew . I f m er el y a ddi ng a ddi tio na l f

ac ts t o abia s c la im

w er e en oughto avoid waiver, then waiver could be easily

avoidable.17

W e fi nd Early to b e pe rs ua siv e in this c as e. T he ke y to the r uli ng i n Earl

y , as is tr ue in Bi an ch i’ s c as e, w as that “ [a ] ll the f ac ts n owa rg ue d a s to [ the co m m itt ee m em

be r’ s] a lle ge d bi as w er e known to [ the pla int if fs ] a t the ti m e the j oin t c om m itt ee he ar d th ei r gr ie vanc es . H ad the [ pla int if

fs ] obj ec te d, [ the com m ittee m em

ber] m ight h ave w ithdrawn in favor of som e other union o fficial. ” Earl y , 699 F . 2d a t 55 8. A ddi tio na lly , j ust a s oc curr ed

in Bi an ch i’ s c as e, “ at

the co nc lus ionof

the he ar ing [ the E ar ly s] e xpr es sly state d th at

the y ha d be enpr ope rl y rep res en te d” by the Uni on . Id . R ej ec tin g th e ty pe of a rg um en t tha t B ianc hi i s atte m pti ng t o a sse rt

he re , the F ir st C ir cu it re as one d th at : Whil e it m ay

be unp le as an t t o have to ch oose be tw ee n po ssi bly al ie na tin g ade ci sio nm ak er in advanc e by

obj ec tin g and w ai vin g th e is su e o f bi as , we can no t ac cep t t ha t p art ie s h av e a ri gh t t o k eep two str ing s inthe ir

bow– t o se ek

vic tor y be fo re the tr ibuna l and the n, ha vi ng lo st , see k t o o ve rtu rn itforbi as ne ve r be fo re cl ai m ed . Id . ; ac co rd

Uni te d S te elwo rk

er s, 648 F. 2d a t 91 3; Swift Independent Pack ing Co. v. D istric t U

nio n L oc al O ne, U

nit ed F ood and Co m m er ci al W

ork er s I nt’ l U nio n , 575 F. Su pp. 912 , 916 ( N . D . N . Y . 198 3) ( fi ndi ng w ai ve r pr es en t i n a S ec tio n 30 1 c as e wher e “plaintiff m ade a c alculated decision no t to object to the alleged bias of [an ar bitrator ] ” be ca

use he w an te d to a voi d a lie na tin g th e ar bitrator ); H

addo n Craftsmen, I

nc. , 489 F . Su

pp. a t 10 93 ( it is w el l se ttl ed that “ a party

m ay not a w ai t an adverse aw ard before asserting objections on grou nds of which he hadIn fac t, the Ac hil licourt ne ver use d the word “ waiver ” or “ estoppel.” B oth Ac hil li 11 (1993) a nd Early (1 98 3) are F ir st C ir c uit c a se s, y e t Ac hil line ith e r r e fe re nc e s Ea rly nor discusses the waive r rules se t forth there in. Waiver is more a

ppare nt in Bianc hi’s case than in Early. In Ea rly there wer e “no 12 actions or r emar

ks by [t he union re prese ntative] showing over t hostil ity or less than conscie ntious performa

nce of duty .” Ea rly , 699 F.2d at 559.

18 knowledge prior to the awar d”). The Earl ycourt held that the plaint iffs had w aived their bad faith/bias theory an d t hu s i t “ co ul d n ot lo okbe hi nd ” th e joi nt co m m it te e’s award on th atba si s. Earl y , 699 F . 2d a t 55 9; H

azar d , 27 5 F .Supp .2dat 2 25 n.1 3. Early an d H azard str ongl y sup port R oa dw ay ’ s w ai ve r ar gum en t. Bi an ch i’ s r es pons e to R oa dw ay ’ s w ai ve r ar gum en t i s w eak and co nt rad ic to ry . The ca se he pri nc ip al ly reli es on , A ch ill i , doe s no t square ly a ddr es s the issue of waiver. T he A ch ill i c ourt w as dis cu ssi ng the D FR iss ue in the c ont ex t of w he the r the e vid en ce sup porte d th e fi ndi ng tha t the U nio n br ea ch ed it s D FR , not as to w he the r the D FR

a rg um en t w as w ai ve d. 11 In Bianchi’ s first rationale of e xcuse, he c laim s that there is no waiver present in his case because his fear that he would m ake the union p art of the panel
m adex cu se d h im

fro m bri ng in g u p t he bi as is su e athi s h eari ng . Earl yis cl earl y

on po in t. Excu se is no t en ou gh . Se e Earl y , 699 F . 2d a t 55 8 ( “ Whil e it m ay be 12 unpl ea sant t o have to ch oose be tw ee n po ssi bly a lie na tin g ade ci sio nm ak er inWhen a g rieva nce pa nel member

asked B ianchi if he had pre sented a ll of the hea ring 13 e vid e nc e in h is f

avo r, and , if

he ha d b e e n p ro pe rl y

re pr e se nte d, he ans we re d ye s to bo th questions. Duringcross-e x amination at trial, B ianchi admitted that this had bee n a lie, and that he then thoug ht that Marr a nd a pane l member we re bia sed, and de ad set a g ainst him. Bianchi te sti fi e d at tr ia l th at he did no t r a ise the iss ue of

bia s at th e he ari ngbe c a

us e he did

no t w ant t o ang er the panel. He testified: “I figured the re is no wa

y they are g oing to take my

job from me. I figure I would just let it[t he bias] go.” 19 advance by

objec ting andwa iving the issue of bias, w e cannot acce pt that parties have a right to keep two strings in th eir bow. ”). 13 Bianchi’ s second rationale of hind sight , that he did not realize Marr ’ s bad faith until it “ dawned on him ” af ter he lost the panel hearing, this is not su pported by the r ec or d. T he r ec or d r ef le ct s th at Bi an ch i a dm itt ed

a t tri al that a t the he ar ing he be lie ve d M ar

r w as onl y

“ ac tin g” a s th oughhe w as r ep re se nti ng h im . I t i s a lso abundant ly

apparent that Marr ’ s personal and po litical anim osity , suggesting bad fa itha nd b ia s, w er e w el l- known to Bi an ch i be fo re the a dve rs e de ci sio n by the grievance panel. D espite learning and being advised before the panel hearing that Marr w as f ixi ng the he ar ing a ga ins t hi m a nd o nly goi ng thr oughthe m oti ons of helping him , B ianchi still p urposely elected not to bring th e subjec t of bias and bad fa ithup at the he ar ing “ be ca use he did

not ha ve the e vid en ce in w ri tin g” a nd h e did not w an t t o m ak e the pane l m ad . Thus, B ianchi “ m ade a c alculated decision no t to object to the alleged bias.” Se e Sw ift I nde p. P ac ki ng , 575 F. Supp. at 916. I n doin g so, he lost the right to keep20

two st rin gs in hi s b ow. Earl y , 699 F. 2d at 558 . W aiver is present and the evidence is i nsuf fi ci en t the re fo re to supp ort the j ur y ve rd ic t. B. Motion for NewTr ial Based upon ou r conclusion th at Roadway is entitled to judgm ent as a m atter of law, we n eedno t re ach th e se co nd ev id en ti ary is su e. VI. CONCLUSI ON Ba se d onthe f

or eg oin g, Bi an ch i w ai ve d hi s ob j ec tio n of ba d f ai th/ bia s by failing to raise it before his grievance panel. T herefor e the evidence at tr ial wa s i n s u ff i ci en tt o s up p o rt a ju ry fi n d i n g t h at t h e U n i o n h ad b re ac h ed i t s DF R. We VA CAT E the j ury

verdict in favor of B ianchi and GRA NT JUD GMENT AS A M A TT EROF LA W f

o r R o a d w a y. JUR Y V ERD ICT F OR BIAN CHI V AC ATE D; JUD GMEN T A S A MATTER O F LAW FOR ROADWAY GRANTE D.