Opinion ID: 699528
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Objection Procedures and Arbitration

Text: 32 Finally, the employees argue that CWA's objection procedure violates its duty of fair representation by requiring them to object within a limited window period each year and to renew their objections annually. As did the district court and other courts considering similar union procedures, 11 we find neither procedure unduly burdensome. Regarding the window period, [t]he union, as well as the employees, have an interest in the prompt resolution of obligations and disputes. The ... window facilitates prompt resolution and leaves no doubt as to the timing of the requirement for making an objection. Kidwell v. Transportation Communications Int'l Union, 731 F.Supp. 192, 205 (D.Md.1990), aff'd in part and rev'd in part on other grounds, 946 F.2d 283 (4th Cir.1991), cert. denied, 503 U.S. 1005, 112 S.Ct. 1760, 118 L.Ed.2d 423 (1992). 12 Similarly, the annual renewal requirement is permissible in light of the Supreme Court's instruction that dissent is not to be presumed--it must affirmatively be made known to the union by the dissenting employee. Street, 367 U.S. at 774, 81 S.Ct. at 1803. [W]e do not consider unreasonable the [policy] provision that each member be required to object each year so long as the union continues to disclose what it must before objections are required to be made. Tierney v. City of Toledo, 824 F.2d 1497, 1506 (6th Cir.1987). 33 We also affirm the district court's ruling that CWA's procedure requiring an objector who challenges the allocation of chargeable and non-chargeable expenses to exhaust Union-provided arbitration violates its duty of fair representation by limiting the choice of forum for the challenge. 13 The law compels a party to submit his grievance to arbitration only if he has contracted to do so. Gateway Coal Co. v. United Mine Workers of Am., 414 U.S. 368, 374, 94 S.Ct. 629, 635, 38 L.Ed.2d 583 (1974). Nothing in the collective bargaining agreement requires arbitration; it is provided for only in CWA's constitution. JA 172, 175. CWA contends that it has not in fact breached its duty inasmuch as it merely raised the arbitration issue as an affirmative defense below. The employees' challenge, however, is to the facial validity of the CWA policy and on that score there is little doubt that the CWA's fair representation duty has been breached. 14 34