FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P E A LS E LE V EN T HC IRC U IT OCT 31 , 2006 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 05- 15119 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D. C . Do c k e tNo . 0 3 - 2 2 7 6 3 - C V- AJ PATR I CI A TAA FF E, P la in tif f - A p p e lla n t,

v ersu s B E L L S O U T H T E L E C O M M U N I C A T I O N S , I N C ., C OMMUNI C AT I ON S WOR KE R S OF AME R I C A, C O M M U N I C A T I O N S W O R K E R S O F A M E R I C A , L O C A L 3122, D efen d an t s-A p p el l ees.

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe S outhe rn D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

________________________ ( O c t ob e r 31, 2006) B efo re A N D E R S O N , B IR C H an d H IL L , C i rcu i tJu d g es.2

P E R C U R I A M: P a tr i c i a T a a f

f e appe a l s the gr a ntof

s um m a ry j udgm e ntt o he re m pl oy e ron he rc l a i m a ga i ns tboth he re m pl oy e rf orbr e a c h of

c ontr a c tby vi ol a t i on of the c o lle c tiv e b a r g a in in g a g r e e m e n t a n d h e ru n io n f o rb r e a c h o f

its d u ty o f

f a ir r e pr e s e nt a t i on unde r29 U . S . C . § 159( a ) . I n s uc h a hy br i d § 301/ f a i rr e pr e s e nt a t i on c la im , p la in tif

f m u s t b e ab le to e s tab lis h b o th th a t th e e m p lo y e rb r e a c h e d its c ol l e c t i ve ba r ga i ni ng a gr e e m e nt( the “ C B A ” ) w i th the uni on, a s w e l l a s tha tthe un i on brea ched i t s duty of f ai r r epre se nt at i on of her. In thi s c as e, the di stri ctcourt hel d thatw hi l e there w er e m at er i al i ss ues of genui ne fa ctas t o the form er , T aa ff e f a i l e d t o e s t abl i s h tha tthe uni on a c t e d i rr a t i ona l l y ora rbi tr a r i l y i n s e tt l i ng a gr i e va nc e a ga i ns the r . W e f i nd no e rr ori n thi s c onc l us i on.

I. T hi s c a s e a r i s e s outof

the s e l e c t i on of

one e m pl oy e e ove ra nothe rf or pr om ot i on. T he e m pl oy e r , B e l l S outh T e l e c om m uni c a t i ons , I nc . , r e vi e w e d the appl i ca nt s a nd se l ec t ed P atri ci a T aa ff e f or prom ot i on t o M at er i al S ervi ce s C oor di na t orove rthe m or e s e ni ore m pl oy e e , D e bbi e M a r kha m . T he c ol l e c t i ve bargai ni ng agre em entbetw ee n the em pl oyerand t he un i on i n thi s c as e provi des th a t: I n the s e l e c t i on of e m pl oy e e s w i thi n the ba r ga i ni ng uni tf or prom ot i on s w i thi n the bargai ni ng un i t , se ni ori ty s hal l go vern i f other3

n e c e s s a ry q u a lif

ic a tio n s o f

th e in d iv id u a ls a r e s u b s ta n tia lly e q u a l. B a s e d upon he rs e ni or i ty , M a r kha m gr i e ve d the s e l e c t i on t o the uni on, C om m uni c a t i ons W or ke r s of A m e r i c a a nd L oc a l 3122. T he uni on s e tt l e d the gr i e va nc e i n M a r kha m ’ s f a vor . T a a f

f e w a s r e turne d t o he rf

orm e r , l ow e r - pa y i ng p o s itio n . S h e f

ile d th is a c tio n , a lle g in g th a t th e u n io n b r e a c h e d its d u ty o f f a ir re pres ent at i on t o h erby se tt l i ng the se l ec t i on gri evance i n M arkh am ’ s f avor. T h e u n io n b r e a c h e s its d u ty o f f a irr e p r e s e n ta tio n to T a a f f e if it u n r e a s o n ab ly concl ud es thatthe em pl oyer ’ s s el ec t i on of her f or prom ot i on w as arbi tra ry . T aa ff e a r gue s tha tthe uni on c oul d notha ve r e a s onabl y r e a c he d s uc h a c onc l us i on b e c a u s e , a lth o u g h M a r k h a m w a s s e n io r , h e rq u a lif ic a tio n s w e r e n o t “s u b s ta n tia lly equal ” t o T aa ff

e’ s bec ause her a tt endance re cord w as “ si gn i fi ca nt l y w orse ” than T a a f f e ’s . II . Iti s i m po rt antt o k ee p i n m i nd i n thi s c as e thatw e a re l i m i t ed i n o ur re vi ew o f th e s e ttle d g r ie v a n c e . I n a s s e s s in g w h e th e ra u n io n h a s b r e a c h e d its d u ty o f f a ir r e pr e s e nt a t i on, w e a r e l i m i t e d t o the de t e r m i na t i on of w he the rthe uni on’ s a c t i ons w er e “ arbi tra ry , di sc ri m i nat ory, or i n b ad fa i th. ” V aca v. Sn i

pes , 386 U . S . 171, 190 (196 7). “ [A ] un i on ’ s a ct i on s a re arbi tra ry on l y i f, i n l i gh tof the fa ctual and l egal l andscape atthe t i m e of the un i on ’ s a ct i on s, the un i on ’ s behavi or i s s o farou t si de a4

‘ w i de ra ng e of r ea sonabl enes s’ . . . as t o b e i rr at i on al . ” A i rl i ne P i l ot ’s A ss oc. v. O ’ N e ill , 49 9 U . S . 65 , 67 (199 1). W e have adhere d t o these pri nci pl es , no t i ng that the “ c a s e s a r e uni f

or m i n hol di ng tha tne i the rne gl i ge nc e of the uni on nora m i s t a ke i n j udgm e nti s s uf

f i c i e ntt o s uppor ta c l a i m tha tthe uni on a c t e d i n a n a rbi tr a ry a nd pe r f unc t ory m a nne r , ” a nd tha t“ nothi ng l e s s tha n a de t e r m i na t i on tha tthe uni on a c te d w ith r e c k le s s d is r e g a r d f o rth e e m p lo y e e ’s r ig h ts o rw a s g r o s s ly d e f ic ie n t in i t s c on du ctw i l l suff

i ce t o est abl i sh [abrea ch of the du ty c l ai m ] . ” H arrr is v . Sc hw e r m ann T

r uc ki ng C o. , 668 F . 2d 1204, 1206 ( 11 C i r . 1982) ( c i t a t i ons th om i tt ed). N or do es ou r r evi ew of a uni on ’ s s ett l em entof a gri evance f ocus on w hether th e u n d e r ly in g g r ie v a n c e h a d m e r it. “I t is s e ttle d la w th a t a b r e a c h o f th e f a ir r e pr e s e nt a t i on duty c a nnotbe ba s e d on the tr i a l c our t ’ s vi e w r e ga r di ng the prob abi l i ty of s ucce ss on the m er i t s of the gri evance. ” Fr e e m a n v . O ’ N e a l S te e l, Inc. , 6 0 9 F .2 d 1 1 2 3 , 1 1 2 6 ( 5 C ir . 1 9 8 0 ) . “B r e a c h o f th e d u ty o f

f a ir th re pres ent at i on i s notes t abl i shed by proo f thatthe un derl yi ng gri evance w as m er i t ori ou s. ” V

aca , 3 8 6 U .S . at 1 9 5 . In sh o rt, th e iss u e is n o t w h eth erth e u n io n ’s i nt erpret at i on of the fa ct s a nd cont ra ctl angu age w as corr ec t , bu tw hether i tw as a rb itr a ry . T

e df or d v . P e abody C oal

C o. , 53 3 F . 2d 95 2, 95 7 (5 C i r. 19 76 ). th I n thi s c a s e , the r e c or d i s c l e a rtha tthe C B A c ont a i ns no de f i ni t i on or5

e xpl a na t i on a s t o w ha tc ons t i tut e s “ s ubs t a nt i a l l y e qua l ” qua l i f i c a t i ons . T hi s l a c k of de f i ni t i on a f f or de d the uni on w i de l a t i tude i n i t s a s s e s s m e ntof the e qua l i ty of T aa ff e a nd M arkh am ’ s qual i fi ca t i on s. A l tho ug h T aa ff e’ s a tt endance w as bett er th a n M a r k h a m’ s , th e e v i d e n c e w a s th a tth e e mp l o y e rc o n s i d e r e d b o th t o h a v e s o me

“ att endance i ss ues. ” N or w as there any other e vi dence i n the re cord fr om w hi ch we c o u l d d e t e r m i n e th a ti twa s u n r e a s o n ab l e f o rth e u n i o n t o d e t e r m i n e th a tth e two em pl oyee s’ att endance re cords w er e not“ subst ant i al l y e qu al . ” Al th o u g h we m a y n o ta g r e e wi th th e u n i o n ’ s a s s e s s m e n to f th e s e two e m pl oy e e s ’ qua l i f

i c a t i ons , i ti s notw i thi n oura uthor i ty t o s ubs t i tut e ourj udgm e nt f ortha tof the uni on’ s i n thi s r e ga r d. S o l ong a s the uni on’ s i nt e rpr e t a t i on of the f a c ts a n d th e c o n tr a c t la n g u a g e in n e ith e r“a rb itr a ry n o rp e r f u n c to ry ,” a n d th e r e is n o e v i d e n c e th a tth e u n i o n a c t e d i n r e c k l e s s d i s r e g a r d f o rth e e m p l o y e e ’ s r i g h t s , we d o n o ts e c o n d - g u e s s i t s d e t e r m i n a t i o n th a ts e n i o r i ty p r e v a i l s i n th i s c a s e o v e rtwo l ess-th an -p erfect att en d an ce reco rd s. W e a g r e e w ith d is tr ic t c o u r t th a t: A s e ni or i ty di s put e be tw e e n m e m be r s of the s a m e ba r ga i ni ng un i t , ho w ever , pl ac es the L ocal i n a po si t i on of confl i ctw hi ch m ay f a ir ly b e s a id to b e in h e r e n t in th e s tru c tu r e o f f e d e r a l lab o rla w s . . . B utw e a r e notr e a dy t o f i nd a br e a c h of

the c ol l e c t i ve b a r g a in in g a g e n t’s d u ty o f f a irr e p r e s e n ta tio n in ta k in g a g o o d f a ith p o s itio n c o n tr a ry to th a t o f s o m e in d iv id u a ls w h o m it r e p r e s e n ts n o rin s uppor t i ng the pos i t i on of one gr oup of

e m pl oy e e s a ga i ns ttha tof6

a n o th e r. . . . “I n e v itab ly d if f e r e n c e s a r is e in th e m a n n e ra n d d e g r e e to w hi ch the t erm s of a ny nego t i at ed agree m entaf fe cti nd i vi du al em pl oyee s a nd cl as se s of e m pl oyee s. T he m er e e xi st ence of such di f f e r e nc e s doe s notm a ke the m i nva l i d. T he c om pl e t e s a t i s f a c t i on of a l l w ho a r e r e pr e s e nt e d i s ha r dl y t o be e xpe c t e d. A w i de r a nge of r e a s onabl e ne s s m us tbe a l l ow e d a s t a tut ory ba r ga i ni ng r e pr e s e nt a t i ve i n s e r vi c e of

the uni ti tr e pr e s e nt s , s ubj e c ta l w a y s t o c om pe t e good f a ith a n d h o n e s ty o f

p u rp o s e in th e e x e r c is e o f its d is c r e tio n .” ( quot i ng Keane v. E ast ern Fre i gh tw ays, Inc. , C a s e N os . 75- 402 a nd 75- 416, 1976 W L 15 00 at*5 -6 (D . N . J. M ay 5, 19 76 ) ( i nt ernal ci t at i on s om i tt ed). T hus , a s the r e i s a l s o no e vi de nc e of di s c r i m i na t ory orba d f a i th c onduc ton th e p a r t o f

th e u n io n in th is c a s e , w e c o n c lu d e th a t th e e v id e n c e in th e r e c o r d is i ns uf f i c i e ntt o di s turb the “ w i de r a nge of r e a s onabl e ne s s ” t o be a f f or de d the U ni on i n the hand l i ng of thi s gri evance. II I. F o r th e fo reg o i n g reaso n s, th e d i stri ctco u rt ’ s j u d g m en ti s AF F I R ME D.