F ILED U.S. COURT O F APP EALS EL EV EN TH C IRC UIT Nov ember 14, 20 07 T HOMA S K. KA HN CLERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 07- 1181 3 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D. C. Docket N o. 05-01601 -CV -O RL -KRS BARBARA J. BARR INGTON, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll an t, ve rs us LOCKHEED MARTIN, U . A . W . L O CA L 788 , I nte rn at ion al U nio n of A uto m obi le , A er ospa ce -A gr ic ult ur al Im pl em en t Work ers of Am eri ca, D ef en dants -Appe lle es .

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ Appeal f rom the United State s District Court fo r the Mi ddl e D istri ct

of F lor ida

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (N ove m be r 14, 200 7) Be fo re A N D E RS O N , BA RKE T T a nd KRA V IT CH , Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M:2

Barb ar a Barr ing ton , pr oc ee din g pr o se , appe al s th e dis tr ic t c ourt’ s gr an t of sum m ar y j udgm en t i n f

av or of L oc khe ed

Mart in ( “ L oc khe ed ”) a nd the In te rn at ion al U nio n of

A uto m obi le , A er ospa ce W orke rs of A m er ic a L oc al U nio n 788 (“ the U nio n” ). A ft er atho ro ugh re vie wof

the r ec or d, w e co nc lud e that the dis tr ic t c ourt pr ope rl y

gr an te d su m

m ar y j udgm en t be ca

use Barr ing tonf

ai le d to pr ov id e an y

ev id en ce t ha t t he Uni on bre ach edit s dut y of f ai r rep res en ta ti on . A c c o r d i n g l y, w e a f

f i rm. I. Ba ck gr ound Barr ing tonw as te rm inate d f ro m he r em plo ym en t w ithL oc khe ed a ft er she cut co-w orker Rickey

W ilson ’ s hair w ithou t perm issio n. A lthou gh W ilson wa s no t ups et , he f

il eda co m

pl ai nt wit h Lo ckhe ed , whi ch he lat er s ou gh t t o re sc in d. T he re af te r, Barr ing tonand tw o f em al e co -w orke rs e nga ge d inac onf ro ntatio n in the restroom , a

pparently because Barrington believed th at these w om en had bul lie d W ils on i nto f

ili ng the c om

pla int in ane ff ort t o have he r fi re d. B as ed on th is in ci de nt , Barri ng to n fi le d d efam at io n s ui ts in st at e co ur t ag ai ns t t he two co-w orkers, althoug h she later voluntarily dism issed the cases. L ockheed then term inated Barr ingto n’ s em ploym ent on the grou nds th at her c ondu ct violated workp la ce ru le s ag ai ns t v io le nt be ha vi or , in ap pr op ria te co nt act , and ho rs ep la y . Barr ing tonpr oc ee de d th ro ugh the U nio n’ s gr ie vanc e pr oc es s un de r the c oll ec tiv e3

bargaining agreem ent (“ CBA ”), challenging h er ter m ination and defending her interaction with W ilson . At the f irst arbitration hearing, Barrington di d not testi fy or present any

witnesses on the advice of her U nion repre sentative, Michael Barn ette . B ar

ne tte ha d de te rm ine d th at L oc khe ed

ha d no t m et

it s burd ento show ca use f or Barr ing ton ’ s te rm inatio n, a nd tha t pr es en tin g e vid en ce or a llo w ing Barr ing tonto te sti fy

w oul d op enthe doo r to i ssu es li ke ly to pla ce Barr ing tonin a bad ligh t. Unhappywith Bar nette’ s advice, B arrington requested a continu ance an d no tif ie d th e U nio n and the arb itr at or that sh e w ish ed

to te sti fy . T he a rb itr at or re-opened the procee ding s to perm it Barr ingto n to testify and present other witnesses. During the proceedings, Bar rington believed that Barnette w as angry with her and that th e ar

bitrator had becom e biased against her, and requested that bo th Barn et te an d t he arb it rat orbe rep la ced . The Un io n d ecl in edto do so . A lth oughthe arb itr at or

f ound that the ha ir -c utt ing inc ide nt d id n ot p ro vid e j ust cause for term ination , the arbitrator ultim ately upheld th e term ination given Barr ing ton ’ s othe r m isc ondu ct of f ili ng f ri vol ous law sui ts. T he U nio n di d no t ap pe al . B ar

ri ngt on the n f

ile d th e ins tant m oti on t o va cate a n arb itr at iona w ar d, pursuant to § 301 o f the L abor Relations Managem ent Act (“ LMR A” ), 29 U. S. C. § 185 , and the Federal A rbitration Act ( “ FA A” ), 9 U. S. C. § 10, on the groun ds that the arb itr at or

e xc ee de d hi s po w er s and e nga ge d inf ra ud, a nd tha t the U nio nThe district c o u rt als o conclude d that Ba rring ton’s failure to exhaust admini strative 1 re me die s sh ou ld b e e xcu se d. Al tho ugh th e Un ion c ha lle ng e s this fi nd in g, it did no t f ile a c ro ssappea l. There fore , we lac k jurisdiction to address this issue. Siz zler Fa m i l y Steak Houses v. Western S iz z li n Stea

k H ou se , 7 93 F .2 d 1 52 9, 15 41 (1 1th Cir . 1 98 6) ; se e a lso F e d. R. A pp . P. 4(a) (3). Ba

rring ton seeks re lief under both § 301 of the L MRA and the FAA . This c ircuit has not 2 de t e r m i n e d w h e th e r th e F A A a p p l i e s t o i s s u e s ar i s i n g un d e r C B A ’ s . A n d w e n e e d n o t r e a c h th is issue in this case bec ause, e ven if the FAA applied, Ba rring ton ha s not shown that the ar bitrator’s awa rd wa s “proc ured by

corr uption, fraud, or

undue mea

ns,” that there w as “evide nt partiality or c o r r u p t i o ni nth e ar

b i tr at o r s , ” o r

th atth e “ ar

b i tr at o r s e x c e e d e d

th e i r p o w e r s . ” 9 U . S . C . § 1 0 ( a ) ; B . L. Har bert Int’l, L L C v. Herc ules Steel Co., 441 F.3d 905, 909-10 & n.2 (11th Cir. 2006). Nor ha s she established that the “ the award was arbitra ry and ca pricious.” B .L . Har

bert Int’l, L L C, 441 F.3d at 910 (interna l citations omitted). In her own testimony , Ba rring ton admitted that she had no e vidence that the arbitrator commi tted fra ud or was biased ag ainst her. She simply believed that this was the case . Moreove r, there is no evidence that the arbitrator exceede d his pow ers in re achinghis decision. Es se nti a lly , B arr ing ton

mis un de rs tand s th e arb itr ator ’s ro le and wh at e vid e nc e he may

pr op e rl y con s id e r . T h e f

a c t th at B ar

r in g to n d id n o t in c lu d e th e in c id e n ts w it h o th e r c o - w o rker s in her g rieva nces did not pre vent the ar bitrator fr om consideringsuch conduc t when i t wa s p re sented a s evidenc e in B arr ington’ s own testimony at the hea ring . There fore , summary judgme nt was prope r on thi s c la im. 4 br each edit s dut y

of f ai r rep res en ta ti on . T he c ourt gr an te d su m

m ar y j udgm en t i n f

av or of L oc khe ed

a nd the U nio n, fi ndi ng tha t the U nio n ha d no t br ea ch ed it s du ty of f ai r re pr es en ta tio n, a s it s ac tio ns w er e supp orte d by r at ion al e xpl an at ion s, w er e not dis cr im inator

y , a nd the re w as no e vid en ce the U nio n a ct ed in ba d f ai th, a nd tha t B ar

ri ngt on c oul d no t es ta bli sh a c la im und er § 30 1 of the L MR Aif she c oul d no t sh owa ny

br ea ch . 1 Barr in gt on no w app eal s. II . A na ly sis 2 Barr ingto n identifies the following in stances in which the Union breached5

it s dut y of f ai r rep res en ta ti on : (1 ) sh e was no t p erm it te d t o t es ti fy or c al l h er o wn w itn es se s a t the f

ir st arb itr at ionhe ar ing ; ( 2) the U nio n r ep re se ntativ e en ga ge d in ex parte c omm

unication s with the arbitrator; ( 3) the Union represe ntative refused to consid er issues she wanted includ ed in the appellate brief; (4) the Union refused to r ep la ce the arb itr at or

upo n he r re que st; a nd ( 5) the U nio n r ef use d to appe al the ar bitrator ’ s aw ar d. S he f

urthe r co nte nds that the a rb itr at or w as bia se d, e nga ge d in fraud, and exceeded his authority by considering evid ence not properly before hi m . W e re vie wadis tr ic t c ourt’ s gr an t of sum m ar y j udgm en t de nov o, vie w ing the evidence in the light m ost favorable to the party oppo sing th e m otion . Skrtich v. T horton , 280 F . 3d 1 295, 129 9 ( 11th C ir . 200 2) . S um m ar y j udgm en t i s ap pr opr ia te if

the ple ad ing s, de posi tio ns, a nsw er s to int er ro ga tor ie s, a nd adm iss ion s onf

ile , tog ethe r w iththe a ff

idavit s, if a ny , sho wthe re is no g enuin e iss ue a s to any

m at er ia l f

ac t and tha t the m ovi ng p ar ty is en tit le d to j udgm en t a s a m atte r of law . F ed . R. Ci v. P . 56( c) ; E be rh ar dt v . W at er s, 901 F . 2d 1 578, 158 0 (11th Cir. 1990). W e ha ve j ur isd ic tio n to r ev ie wde ci sio ns o f la bor a rb itr at or s un de r § 30 1 of the L MR A , w hic h pe rm its ind ivi dua l e m plo y ee s to se ek

r ev ie wof

de ci sio ns related to, inter alia, wr ongful d ischarge. See Maj or L eague Baseball P lay ers6

A ss’ n v. G ar

ve y , 532 U . S. 504 , 509 , 121 S . Ct . 172 4, 172 8 ( 2001 ); D ar de n v. Uni te d S ta te s St eel Co rp ., 83 0 F .2d11 16 , 11 19 (11 th Cir . 19 87 ).

“ [R ] ev ie wof

ala bor arb itr at iona w ar d is li m ite d to ade te rm inatio n of w he the r anaw ar d is ir

ratio na l, w he the r it fa ils to dr awit s e sse nc e fr om the co l l ec t i v e b ar g ai n i n g ag re emen to r w h et h eri tex ce ed s th e s co p e o f t h e a rb i t ra t o r’s au tho ri ty . ” O sr am

S y lvania , I nc . v. T eam ste rs L oc al U nio n 52 8, 87 F . 3d 1 261, 1263 ( 11th C ir . 199 6) ( quot at ionm ar ks o m itt ed ). N ev er

the le ss, “ as lon g a s th e ar bitrator is ev enarg uably

c onstru ing or

appl y ing the c ontra ct

a nd a ct ing w ith in the sc ope of

his auth or ity , that a

c ourt i s c onvi nc ed

he c om m itt ed se ri ous er

ro r doe s no t su ff

ic e to o ve rt

ur n hi s de ci sio n. ” I d. ( quot ing U nit ed P ap er w orke rs v. Mi sc o, I nc . , 484 U . S. 29, 38, 108 S . Ct . 364 , 371 ( 1987 )) . “ It is onl y w he n th e ar bitrator str ay s f ro m int er pr et at iona nd a

ppl ic at ionof

the a gr ee m en t and ef fe ct ive ly dis pe nse s hi s own br an d of ind ustri al j ust ic e that hi s de ci sio n m ay be une nf or ce ab le . ” G ar

ve y , 532 U . S. a t 50 9 ( int er na l qu otatio n m ar

ks and a lte ratio n om itted). To succee d on a § 301 claim , B arrington m ust sh ow that the U nion breac hed its dut y of fair repre sentation. This issue presents a question of lawthat we review de nov o. B ianc hi v . Ro adw ay E xpr es s, I nc . , 441 F . 3d 1 278, 128 2 ( 11th C ir . ), c er t. de ni ed , 12 7 S .Ct. 3 97 (20 06 ).7

A la bor uni on h as astatut or

y duty of f ai r re pr es en ta tio n “ to s er

ve the int er es ts o f al l m em

be rs w ith out

hos til ity or dis cr im inatio n to w ar d any , to ex er ci se its discretion with com

plete goodfaith and honesty , a nd to avo id arbitrary co nduc t. ” V ac a v. S ipe s, 386 U . S. 171 , 177 , 87 S . Ct . 903 , 910 ( 1967 ). I f the uni on r ep re se nti ng the e m plo y ee “ ac ts i n su chadis cr im inator y , dis hone st, arbitrar y , or perfunctory

fashion as to breach its dutyof fair repre sentation,” an em plo y ee m ay

sue both th e em

plo y er a nd the uni on, r eg ar dle ss o f the out co m e or fi n al i t y o f t h e g ri ev an ce o r a rb i t ra t i o n p ro ce ed i n g . De l Co s t el l o v . I n t ’l Brotherhood of Team sters, 462 U. S. 151, 164, 103 S.Ct. 2281 , 2290 (1983). Such a sui t c onsi sts of

tw o c au se s of

a ct ion : on e ag ai nst

the e m plo y er und er § 30 1 f or br ea chof the CB A , and the oth er

a ga ins t the uni on f

or br ea chof

the uni on’ s du ty of fair repre sentation. Id. Thus, to prevail, a plaintiff m ust dem onstrate both that th e CBA was bre ach edan d t ha t t he un io n b reac he d i ts du ty of fai r rep res en ta ti on . D el Co ste llo , 462 U . S. a t 16 5; H ine s v. A nc hor Mo tor F re igh t, I nc . , 424 U . S. 554 , 570, 96 S . Ct . 104 8, 105 9 ( 1976 ) A uni on b re ac he s it s du ty of f ai r re pr es en ta tio n on ly

if it s a ct ion s to w ar d a m em be r are “ arb it rary, dis cri m in at ory , or i n b adfai th .” Vaca, 3 86 U.S. 19 0. “ [A] unio n’ s actions are ar

bitrary only if, in ligh t of the fac tual and legal landscape at the ti m e of

the uni on’ s a ct ion s, the uni on’ s be ha vio r is s o f ar out sid e a ‘ w ide r an geIn Bonne r v. City of Prichar d, 661 F.2d 1206, 1207 (11th Cir. 1981) (e n banc) , this court 3 held that all deci sions handed down by the old Fifth Circuit bef ore the close of busine ss on Se pte mbe r 3 0, 19 81 , a

re bin din gpr e c e de nt i n th e El e ve nth Cir c uit . Ba rring ton does not argue, and the re is no evide nce to support a claim that the Union ac ted 4 in a discriminatory

fashion. 8 of r ea sona ble ne ss’ a s to be ir

ratio na l. ” A ir

L ine P ilo ts A ss’ n, I nt’ l v. O ’ N ei ll, 499 U . S. 65, 67, 111 S . Ct . 112 7, 113 0 ( 1991 ) (i nte rn al c itatio n om itt ed ). N ev er the le ss,

“ [a ] uni on’ s br oa d di sc re tio n inpr ose cu tin g gr ie vanc e co m pla int s in cl ude s no t onl y the r igh t t o se ttl e the dis put e shor t of a rb itr at ionbut

a lso to re fu se to ini tiate the f ir st s te ps i n th e ap pe al pr oc ed ur e w he n it

be lie ve s th e gr ie vanc e to b e w ith out m er it. ” S ee T ur

ne r v. A ir T ranspo rt

D isp at ch er s’ A ss’ n, 468 F . 2d 2 97, 300 ( 5th Cir. 1972 ). 3 He re, the district court properly granted summ ary

j udgm ent because there wa s no eviden ce that the U nion breac hed its du ty by acting arbitrar ily

or in bad fa ith . A cc or din g to the r ec or ds, Barn ette ’ s de ci sio ns w er e supp orte d by 4 reasonable strategy . Barnette e xplained th at he did not want Barr ingto n to testify b ec au s e L o ck h ee dh ad n o tm et i t s b u rd en t o es t ab l i s h ca u s e f o r B arri n g t o n ’s te rm in at io n, an d B arri ng to n’s t es ti m on y wou ldon ly ope n t he do orto ot he r is su es . Barr ing tonw as able to te sti fy and p re se nt h er

w itn es se s a t the r e- ope nin g of the pr oc ee din gs. A nd a s th e ar bitrator e xpl ai ne d, his de ci sio n to uph old the te rm inatio n w as not

ba se d onthe ha ir -c utt ing inc ide nt, but r athe r re sul te d f

ro m9

Barr ing ton ’ s own te sti m ony that sh e en ga ge d inoth er m isc ondu ct

that w oul d jus ti fy ter m in at io n. Moreover, a re view of the r ecord established that Barnette incorporated Barr ing ton ’ s is sue s in to h is a ppe llate br ie f. F urthe rm or e, a cc or din g to the evidence, the Union ’ s own policy wa s not to appeal ar

bitration awards. T here w as no th in g a rb it rary or d is cri m in at ory ab ou t i ts refu sa l t o d o s o i n B arri ng to n’s ca se . Be ca use Barr ing tonc an not

e sta bli sh a br ea chby

the U nio n, she c an not succeed on her § 301 claim , and we need not consider whether Lockheed brea ched th e CBA, o r whe th er t he arb it rat io n a wardsh ou ldha ve be en va cat ed . Ac cordingly , w e A FFI RM.