-1- NO T R EC OM M EN DE D F OR F UL L- TEX T P UB LIC AT ION F ile Nam e: 07a0022n.06 F iled: Janu ary 8, 2007 No. 06-3065 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT

CH ARLES J ON ES, P laintif f-App ellant,

v. DAIMLERCHRYSLER CO RPO RATION, Defendan t, I N T E R N A T I O N AL UN ION , U NI TED AU T O MO B I L E , AEROSPAC E AND A G RICULTURAL IMP LEM E N T WORKERS O F AM E RI CA , UAW (LOCAL 12), Defendan t-Appellee. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON AP P EA L F RO M THE U NI TED STA TES D ISTRICT C OU RT F OR THE NO RT HER

N D ISTRIC T OF OHI O

Be for e : M AR TIN , N OR RI S and G IBBO NS, Ci r c uitJudg e s. JULIA SMITH G IBBO NS, C ircuit Judge. Plaintiff-appe llant Charles Jones appeals the g rant of summary judgme nt by the di strict court to defe ndant-a ppellee I nternational Union, United Automobile, Aerospa ce a nd Ag ricu l t u ral I mplement Workers of Ame rica , UAW (L ocal 12) (the “Union”) on his claim for brea ch of the duty of fa ir repr esentation that is i mplied under the N ational L a bo r R e la tio ns Ac t ( “ NL RA ” ). Jone s c omp la ins that th e Un ion fa ile d to fa ir ly

re pr e se nt h im i n pursuing two g rieva

nces f or violati o n s of the Collective B arg aining Ag ree ment (“CB A”) by defe ndant Daimler Chry sler Corporation ( the “Company ”). J ones orig inally sued both the Union forThe FMLA claim was disposed of in pa rt by a g rant of summary judgme nt to the Company 1 and in p art by se ttl e me nt. -2- br e a c h o f i ts d

uty of fa ir re pr e se ntatio n a

nd the C omp any

fo r b re a c h o f t

he CB A a nd fo r a F a mil y and Medic al L eave Act (“ FMLA”) violation. The district cour t gr anted summary

judgme nt to the Com pa ny on the c la ime d vio la tio n of the CB A and to the Un ion on the c la ime d b re a c h o f t he du ty 1 of fa ir re pr e se ntatio n. Jone s on ly a pp e a ls the g ra

nt o f s umm ary

jud g me nt t o th e Un ion

and e xplic itl y d o e s n o ta

p p e a l t h e d i s t r i c tc o u r

t ’ s d e c i s i o nt o g r an ts u m m ar y j u d g m e n tt o t h e C o mp an y. Hy brid § 301/fair repr esentation a ctions involve both a claim ag ainst the plaintiff’s e mploy er under § 301 of

the L abor Ma

nag ement Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 185, alleg ing brea ch of the CBA, and a c laim ag ainst the union for breac h of t he duty of fair repr esentation that is i mplied under the NL RA. De lCo ste llo v . In t’ l Bh d. of T e am ste rs , 462 U.S. 151, 164-65 (1983). The two claims are “inextricably

interdepe ndent.” Id . at 16 4. “ [T]o r e c ov e r a g a ins t either t h e C o mp an y or

the Union, [the pla int if

f] mus t sh owthat th e Com pa ny br e a c he d th e Ag re e me nt and that the Union bre ache d its du ty of fa ir re pr e se ntatio n. Un le ss [the pla int if f] d e mon str a te s bo th violations, he ca nnot succe ed aga i n s t ei t h er party .” Bagsby v. Lewis Bros., Inc., of Tenn. , 8 2 0 F

. 2 d 7 9 9 , 8 0 1 ( 6 th

Ci r . 1 9 8 7) (interna l citation omitt ed). “The employ ee may , if he chooses, sue one de fenda nt and not the other; but the case he must prove is the same whe ther he sues one, the othe r, or both.” De lCo ste llo , 462 U.S. at 165. I t is of no conseque nce that J ones settled with the Company

. See G arrison v. Cassens Transp. Co. , 334 F.3d 528, 538 n.8 ( 6th Cir. 2003). As J ones does not app ea l the district court’s g rant of summar

y judgme nt to the Company , its conclusion that the Company did not violate the CBA is disposi t i v e, an d J ones’s c laim ag ainst the Union for br eac h of duty of fa ir repr esentation

mus t f a il.-3-

For the fore g oing r easons, we aff irm the district court’s g rant of summar y judgme nt in favor of the Union.