Opinion ID: 24884
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Exhaustion of Internal Union Remedies

Text: The Union argues that the suit should be dismissed because the affected members failed to exhaust the union grievance procedure. Section 301 of the LMRA provides that suits for violation of contracts between an employer and a labor organization may be brought in any United States District Court. 29 U.S.C.A. § 185. Coverage of actions under Section 301 extends to 9 suits brought by employees as well as suits brought by unions. See Association of Westinghouse Salaried Employees v. Westinghouse Electric Corp., 348 U.S. 437, (1955). When a Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) provides for grievance procedures, these methods are the preferred method of resolving disputes. See Republic Steel Corp. V. Maddox, 379 U.S. 650 (1965). Further, an employee must ordinarily exhaust these remedies before bringing a suit under Section 301 of the NLRA. Id. The Supreme Court however has recognized that there are circumstances where exhaustion is not required. See Glover v. St. Louis-San Francisco Ry. Co., 393 U.S. 324 (1969). Where resort to internal grievance procedures would be futile, exhaustion of these internal remedies is not required. See id. The Fifth Circuit has recognized this ground as a reason excusing an employee from resorting to administrative remedies under the CBA. See Rabalais v. Dresser Industries, Inc., 566 F.2d 518, 519 (5th Cir. 1978). The futility exception applies where the exhaustion of contractual remedies would be futile because the aggrieved employee would have to submit his claim to a group that is in large part chosen by the (employer or union) against whom his real complaint is made. See id. (citing Glover, 393 U.S. at 330). Employees are excused from exhausting internal grievance procedures where doing so would result in the union conducting an investigation of itself and having to prove its own misconduct. See Parker v. Int’l Bhd. of Teamsters, 501 F. Supp 440, 452 (S.D. Ohio 1980) (exhaustion of internal procedures rendered futile and unnecessary where union would have to investigate its own misconduct in how it supervised election). The Court finds that in the instant case, the futility exception to the general exhaustion requirement applies. The case is before this Court due to the parties’ differing interpretations of 10 the arbitrator’s award, and subsequent clarification of that award. The parties are on opposite ends of the argument and both have a financial interest in the outcome. Therefore, the Union’s argument that the employees must turn toward the Union itself for resolution of the issue rings hollow. Requiring the employees to pursue their grievance internally, when the Union has already stated their position on the issue, appears to be a futile action that would fall within the exceptions granted to the exhaustion requirement.