Opinion ID: 1256266
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Even If the Arbitration Award Has Preclusive Effect, Feichtinger May Recover Damages from the Union.

Text: The union contends that if a discharge is for just cause or if the merits of the discharge cannot be reexamined, a union cannot be liable for breach of the duty of fair representation because the employee has not been injured. The union correctly notes that some case law supports this position. [45] But contrary authority also exists; it indicates that an employee may recover some damages (usually attorney's fees) from the union even absent a wrongful discharge. [46] An example of this latter line of authority is Del Casal v. Eastern Airlines, Inc. [47] A pilot there sought to set aside the arbitration decision upholding his discharge by suing his employer for wrongful discharge and the pilots' union for breach of the duty of fair representation. [48] He claimed that the union refused to represent him because he was not a union member. [49] Although the Fifth Circuit found no justification for setting aside the arbitration decision in favor of the employer, [50] it held that the union breached its duty of fair representation by discriminatorily refusing to represent the pilot in arbitration. [51] It stated that [w]hile [the union] has the authority to decide under what conditions an attorney will be supplied to a grievant, the fact that the grievant is not a member of the union can play no part in that decision. [52] The Fifth Circuit further reasoned that even if the arbitration award was untainted by the breach (because the pilot hired his own counsel) the pilot still suffered loss in the form of fees to be paid to his privately retained attorney. [53] It therefore affirmed the jury's award of $35,000 in damages (the pilot's attorney's fees) for the union's breach, despite the fact that the arbitration decision was not relitigated or set aside. [54] Additional support for this view is found in Justice Stevens's concurring opinion in United Parcel Service, Inc. v. Mitchell, [55] where he explained that the two claims are closely related but conceptually distinct: [56] The fact that the underlying discharge may not have violated the collective-bargaining agreement does not necessarily absolve the union of liability for its breach, although it may limit the size of the employee's recovery against the union. Thus, while a court considering an employee's claim against a union will evaluate the validity of the employer's underlying conduct, that evaluation is not central to the resolution of the duty-of-fair-representation claim.[ [57] ] We choose to follow those federal courts that reason that, even if the arbitration decision upholding an employee's discharge has preclusive effect, it does not necessarily bar the employee's suit against the union. A union is liable to the employee for damages flowing from its breach of the duty of fair representation. In most such cases, the employee's damages will be limited to attorney's fees and costs expended in the arbitration process. Applying this rule here may result in de minimus damages because Feichtinger did not retain an attorney to represent him in the arbitration. Nonetheless, Feichtinger should have an opportunity to seek recoverable damages.