Opinion ID: 2784282
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: First and Second Recall Grievances

Text: Daniels asserts UAW engaged in a series of repeated negligent actions, which supports a claim of a breach of the duty of fair representation. As to the First Recall Grievance, we affirm the district court’s determination UAW did not breach its duty of fair representation. As stated above, employees do not have an absolute right to have a grievance taken to arbitration, as long as the decision not to arbitrate made on behalf of the employee is done “honestly and in good faith.” Id. 7 Case: 14-12971 Date Filed: 03/05/2015 Page: 8 of 9 UAW investigated this grievance and learned BTU planned to discontinue the employment of temporary duty leave teachers. The decision to withdraw the grievance was made in good faith reliance on BTU’s assurances. As to the Second Recall Grievance, if a “grievance was fairly presented a court will not second guess an arbitrator’s decision regarding the merits of the employee's grievance.” Harris v. Schwerman Trucking Co., 668 F.2d 1204, 1206 (11th Cir. 1982). Daniels attempts to show his grievance was not fairly presented by pointing to multiple ways in which UAW was allegedly negligent in presenting his claim. However, even if UAW were negligent in presenting his grievance, “Cases are uniform in holding that neither negligence on the part of the union nor a mistake in judgment is sufficient to support a claim that the union acted in an arbitrary and perfunctory manner. . . . Nothing less than a demonstration that the union acted with reckless disregard for the employee’s rights or was grossly deficient in its conduct will suffice to establish such a claim.” Id. at 1206-07 The record shows UAW took the grievance to arbitration, called witnesses, cross-examined BTU’s witnesses, provided the arbiter with a post-hearing brief, and advanced relevant arguments regarding why BTU’s conduct breached the CBA. Based on this evidence, UAW’s conduct with regard to the Second Recall Grievance cannot be characterized as perfunctory, arbitrary, or discriminatory. 8 Case: 14-12971 Date Filed: 03/05/2015 Page: 9 of 9