Opinion ID: 1232889
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Union duty of fair representation

Text: When a union is selected as exclusive representative of the employees in a bargaining unit, it has a duty under § 9(a) of the National Labor Relations Act to fairly represent them. Vaca v. Sipes, 386 U.S. 171, 177, 87 S.Ct. 903, 17 L.Ed.2d 842 (1967). A union breaches this duty when its conduct toward an employee is arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad faith. Air Line Pilots v. O'Neill, 499 U.S. 65, 67, 111 S.Ct. 1127, 113 L.Ed.2d 51 (1991). A union's action is arbitrary only if [such conduct] can be fairly characterized as so far outside a `wide range of reasonableness' that it is wholly `irrational' or `arbitrary.' Id. at 78, 111 S.Ct. 1127 (quoting Ford Motor Co. v. Huffman, 345 U.S. 330, 338, 73 S.Ct. 681, 97 L.Ed. 1048 (1953)); see also Sipes, 386 U.S. at 192, 87 S.Ct. 903 ([A] union does not breach its duty of fair representation ... merely because it settled the grievance short of arbitration.). And a union does not breach the duty of fair representation by failing to consult with a worker before settling his grievance. Whitten v. Anchor Motor Freight, Inc., 521 F.2d 1335, 1341 (6th Cir.1975). Courie argues that the union racially discriminated against him by entering into the settlement agreement, contending that the agreement's language amounted to an admission that he was a racist. The agreement stated that Mr. Courie understands and acknowledges that his remarks were inappropriate. We disagree that this was improper. It was not arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad faith for the union to negotiate for a concession stating that Courie appreciated that his remark was inappropriateindeed, a state court had concluded that the original reprimand itself was entirely permissible, and it is difficult to surmise in what way this settlement exceeds what the warning itself already had done. (The state court went so far as to state that Alcoa had a legal obligation to warn [Courie] that calling a co-worker a racially offensive name would not be tolerated. Courie, 832 N.E.2d at 1237.) There was therefore nothing improper about the union negotiating an agreement whereby Courie admitted that he should not have called his coworker Jew Boy in exchange for the warning to be stricken from his record. Bargaining for such an exchange was reasonable union action.