Opinion ID: 1256266
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Assuming the Union Breached Its Duty of Fair Representation, a Genuine Issue of Material Fact Exists Regarding Whether the Breach Seriously Undermined the Integrity of the Arbitration.

Text: The union also argues that it deserves summary judgment because Feichtinger failed to make any showing that the breach seriously undermined the arbitral process, even assuming the Union breached its duty of fair representation. [30] Feichtinger disputes the union's argument. Before addressing the merits of this issue, we note that we are following the lead of the federal courts by permitting resolution of this issue on summary judgment. [31] To withstand a union's motion for summary judgment on the question of whether a union's breach seriously undermined the integrity of the arbitral process, an employee must present some evidence of the nature of the breach and how the arbitration outcome might have been different absent the breach. [32] Hines provides a good example of a successful claim. The employees, who were accused of overstating the expenses they incurred at a motel, insisted that they were innocent and that their union did not investigate their case thoroughly. [33] The employees alleged that, with minimal investigation, the union would have uncovered evidence suggesting that the motel clerk was at fault; if the arbitrator had considered that evidence, the arbitration result might well have been different. [34] In this case, the union argues that its failure to represent Feichtinger did not affect the outcome of the arbitration because the CBA permitted him to arbitrate alone or with his own attorney. We disagree. First, the union's argument suggests that if a CBA allows employees to go to arbitration without union representation, a union's decision not to arbitrate could never undermine the arbitral process seriously enough to sustain a hybrid suit. We decline to hold that the employee's contractual right to grieve without union assistance necessarily establishes, as a matter of law, that the union's breach did not undermine the arbitral process. Second, to establish that the arbitral process was seriously undermined, Feichtinger does not rely only on the fact that it was difficult to arbitrate alone. He also argues that in this case the lack of union representation was fatal. His case involved special factse.g., publicity, resource imbalance, and access to informationthat made assistance of counsel and the union crucial to preserving the integrity of the process. Feichtinger alleges that he faced political and personal animosity during the arbitration process. In an affidavit supporting his opposition to summary judgment, he suggested that he stood at an immediate disadvantage because his criminal case had been widely publicized and because rumors about him were rampant. Feichtinger stated that he was financially unable to retain counsel to give him substantive assistance in the arbitration. He also claimed that his lack of legal training left him at a severe disadvantage during arbitration, because he was unfamiliar with the case law cited by the municipality. Finally, he affied that without counsel or union assistance he was unable to produce the evidence necessary to counter the municipality's case. Given the negative publicity surrounding his case, union representation might have been critical to lend credibility to the substance of his grievance. Although Feichtinger filed a pro se brief with the arbitrator, it is questionable whether he was able to present his position fully without actually participating in the hearing. He apparently thought that the hearing would extend for another week, and he had wanted to respond to the Municipality's case during that second hearing week. Viewing the evidence in Feichtinger's favor and giving him the benefit of permissible inferences, he has at least raised a factual dispute about whether his lack of counsel, resources, time, and legal expertise kept him from presenting his case and undermined the arbitral process. For these reasons, we conclude that there is a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether any breach of the union's duty of fair representation seriously undermined the arbitral process. Summary judgment on this issue was not appropriate.