Opinion ID: 526766
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The 1985 Rain Incident

Text: 36 We start with the 1985 rain incident, which, as Landry's third disciplinary citation, triggered the revocation of his G card. Landry contends that Local 854 breached its duty of fair representation in failing to investigate this grievance adequately. He also faults the union for refusing to resolve the dispute on the merits through arbitration. 37 In support of his claim, Landry notes that the evidence established that the union president, Tyrone Webster, declined to meet with Landry to discuss his grievance. Landry testified that Webster stated he was too busy for such a meeting. Landry also points to the fact that NOSSA officials testified that they agreed to return Landry's card primarily because union representatives lobbied them on humanitarian grounds, stating that Landry had suffered enough and needed to return to work to support his family. In seeking the return of Landry's card, Local 854 officials did not focus on the merits of Landry's grievance. 38 Even when this evidence is considered in the light most favorable to Landry, however, it is not sufficient to support a conclusion that Local 854 breached its duty of fair representation. The failure of a union president to meet with a grievant does not provide sufficient evidence to establish that the union did not investigate a claim adequately. In fact, it is undisputed that union vice-president Ray Worthy was present on the docks at the time of the rain incident. Worthy was able to determine the prevailing weather conditions. He questioned the protesting workers and the Cooper/Smith supervisor. Worthy also discovered that 23 of the 25 workers on the crew went to work without protest; Landry was one of two workers who refused to work because of the rain. 39 Under these circumstances, Local 854 may well have concluded that a humanitarian appeal was more likely to succeed in regaining Landry's card than would an arbitration based on the merits of Landry's claim. The decision not to arbitrate the grievance on its merits was clearly within the union's discretion. Vaca, 386 U.S. at 191-95, 87 S.Ct. at 917-19. 40 The insufficiency of evidence to support Landry's contention that Local 854 breached its duty of fair representation becomes even more apparent when one examines the uncontradicted evidence regarding the actions the union did take to prosecute Landry's grievance. Ray Worthy immediately took up Landry's cause at a Step One negotiation, attempting to avert a disciplinary citation for the rain incident. When that approach proved unsuccessful, Local 854 supported Landry at a Step Two meeting before the Disputes Resolution Committee, with both union representatives on the Committee voting in Landry's favor. When Landry's registration card was nevertheless revoked under the just cause provision of the collective bargaining agreement, the Union repeatedly requested that NOSSA officials return the card. Ultimately, a settlement was reached so that the revocation of Landry's card was reduced to a 72-day suspension, and he was allowed to return to work. 41 In short, the evidence conclusively established that Local 854 diligently pursued Landry's grievance, albeit not on the grounds or with the tactics Landry desired. Cf. Hart v. Nat'l Homes Corp., 668 F.2d 791, 794 (5th Cir.1982). The union's duty of fair representation, however, was not a ministerial one of satisfying each employee's demands at all costs. Cox, 607 F.2d at 142. 42 Landry's dispute with Local 854 over the rain incident is, at bottom, a disagreement over tactics and discretionary decisions. The evidence in support of Landry's claim does not indicate any arbitrary, discriminatory, or bad faith conduct by the union. Thus, the evidence is insufficient to establish that Local 854 breached its duty of fair representation in grieving Landry's disciplinary citation for refusing to work in the rain.