Opinion ID: 698684
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Perfunctory Representation

Text: 23 Garcia's next allegation, that Stanton's overall handling of the hearing was so perfunctory as to be arbitrary, fails for much the same reason as his videotape claim. Garcia alleges that the Union failed to put on even a cursory defense, Appellant's Br. at 29, that Stanton conducted no cross-examination of Zenith's witnesses, id. at 24, and that the Union made no attempt to present his side of the story. Appellant's Reply Br. at 3. 24 It is undisputed that Stanton rested at the end of Zenith's case and did not call any witnesses of his own. However, Garcia's unsupported claims that Stanton conducted no cross-examination nor said a word in Garcia's defense are hard to believe. The arbitrator's opinion mentions most, if not all, of the Union's arguments. It specifically notes that the Union argues that an inadequate investigation was conducted by the employer, that the Union suggests that a handwriting expert should have been utilized, that it is argued further that the employer had no evidence linking Garcia to sabotage and thus the penalty does not fit the crime, that the Union states that Garcia has an exemplary work record and that the Union reminds the Arbitrator that Garcia explained his actions as a effort to alert the employer as to what was happening in the plant. Arb.Op. at 5. The arbitrator also makes specific reference to the Union counsel's closing argument. Id. It is difficult to believe that the arbitrator would be so aware of the Union's case and the details of its arguments had Stanton truly failed to put on even a cursory defense. Appellant's Br. at 29. 25 Stanton's strategy and presentation may not have been Garcia's preferred approach, and Stanton may not have been as thorough as he might have been. However, Garcia does not prove a disregard for his case sufficient to meet the standard imposed on the Union. Stanton pursued a rational strategy with sufficient competence and vigor to meet the burden of some minimal investigation of employee grievances, and showed no egregious disregard for union members' rights constitut[ing] a breach of the union's duty. Castelli, 752 F.2d at 1483 (that the Union business representative spent no more than one and a half hours in investigation and preparation for arbitration, and did not call key witnesses, constituted neither arbitrariness nor bad faith).