Opinion ID: 586403
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Failure to Exhaust Union Remedies

Text: 22 In bringing suit against the Union instead of appealing Nelson's decision according to Union procedures, Jones failed to exhaust his union remedies. Jones argues that the Union did not provide for an appeal in his case. However, Article 75, paragraph I, section (d) of the Union charter states: A ... member of a local may appeal from an action or decision of a General Chairperson to the General Committee of Adjustment, provided the appeal is filed within ninety (90) days from the date the action of decision occurred. Jones could have appealed Nelson's decision under Article 75. 23 Normally, a union member who has failed to exhaust his internal union remedies faces dismissal of his suit against the union. Clayton v. Automobile Workers, 451 U.S. 679, 685-686, 101 S.Ct. 2088, 2093, 68 L.Ed.2d 538 (1981). However, the district court has discretion to excuse a failure to exhaust union remedies if exhaustion would have been a futile effort. Id. at 689, 101 S.Ct. at 2095; Zuniga v. United Can Co., 812 F.2d 443, 449 (9th Cir.1987). One of the tests for futility asks whether union officials are so hostile to the employee that he could not hope to obtain a fair hearing on his claim. Clayton, 451 U.S. at 689, 101 S.Ct. at 2095. 24 In its decision, the district court expressly declined to decide the futility issue because it granted the Union summary judgment on the merits. Because summary judgment on the merits was inappropriate and because the futility decision is a matter of discretion for the district court, we remand for a determination of whether the futility exception applies. If the court so determines, then Jones should be allowed to bring his fair representation claim to trial.