Opinion ID: 787206
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: IAM's Challenge to the Jury's Verdict

Text: 17 IAM maintains, as it did below, that the judgment should be overturned because, despite the jury's finding that IAM's seniority decision was motivated by animus, there was an independent rational basis supporting its decision; namely, that they had resigned from Eastern. In other words, IAM contends that because an objective union, albeit one with different policies, could have reasonably denied plaintiffs their Eastern seniority, IAM should be immune from suit here even though it had been motivated by animus toward plaintiffs as a result of their having favored AMFA. 2 We do not agree. 18 The statutory duty of fair representation was developed [decades] ago. Vaca v. Sipes, 386 U.S. 171, 177, 87 S.Ct. 903, 17 L.Ed.2d 842 (1967). [A] union breaches [this] duty... when its conduct toward a member of the bargaining unit is arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad faith. Marquez v. Screen Actors Guild, Inc., 525 U.S. 33, 44, 119 S.Ct. 292, 142 L.Ed.2d 242 (1998). Put differently, a breach occurs when a union fails to serve the interests of all members without hostility or discrimination toward any, [] exercise its discretion with complete good faith and honesty, [or] avoid arbitrary conduct. Vaca, 386 U.S. at 177, 87 S.Ct. 903. [A] union may not, without a legitimate purpose, take action favoring some of its members at the expense of others. Teamsters Local Union No. 42 v. NLRB, 825 F.2d 608, 611 (1st Cir.1987) (citing Laborers and Hod Carriers Local No. 341 v. NLRB, 564 F.2d 834, 840 (9th Cir.1977); Barton Brands, Ltd. v. NLRB, 529 F.2d 793, 800 (7th Cir.1976)). Additionally, a union violates [its duty] when it causes an employer to discriminate against employees on arbitrary, hostile, or bad faith grounds. Barton Brands, 529 F.2d at 799. 19 Although our review of a union's collective bargaining must be highly deferential [and must] recogniz[e] the wide latitude that [unions] need for the effective performance of their bargaining responsibilities, Air Line Pilots Association v. O'Neill, 499 U.S. 65, 78, 111 S.Ct. 1127, 113 L.Ed.2d 51 (1991), a union may not juggle the seniority roster for no reason other than to advance one group of employees over another or to punish a disfavored group, Rakestraw v. United Airlines, 981 F.2d 1524, 1535 (7th Cir.1992); see also Teamsters Local Union No. 42, 825 F.2d at 612 ([W]hen a union attempts to prefer [one group of] workers based solely on [their loyalty to their guild], it has breached its duty.). Finally, a union is not permitted to ignore its own policies to punish a minority group within the union. Nellis v. Air Line Pilots Association, 815 F.Supp. 1522, 1533 (E.D.Va.1993) (A union is bound to follow its [own] policies.), aff'd, 15 F.3d 50 (4th Cir.1994). 20 The jury found that IAM violated these principles. Rather than treating plaintiffs as having transitioned from Eastern — a policy IAM announced in the Eastern bankruptcy proceeding — IAM instead opted to treat them as having resigned in order to strip them of their seniority status for no reason other than animus. 21 IAM seeks support for its position in the Seventh Circuit's Rakestraw decision. In Rakestraw, the court held that union members could not sue their union for dovetailing merger lists even though the union's decision to dovetail contradicted its own policy of arbitrating such disputes. 981 F.2d at 1527, 1533. Judge Easterbrook, writing for the court, held that because [a] rational person could conclude that dovetailing seniority lists in a merger ... serves the interests of [the union membership] as a whole, id. at 1533, doing so could not constitute a breach of the duty of fair representation. 22 Even assuming we were to adopt this rule, we cannot see how it supports IAM's position. Unlike in Rakestraw, plaintiffs here do not suggest that IAM acted improperly merely by dovetailing the seniority lists. Rather, they argue that IAM was motivated by retaliatory animus in choosing which seniority dates to apply. The jury held, in effect, that IAM revoked plaintiffs' seniority because it was hostile toward them as a result of their association with AMFA. This, of course, is not objectively reasonable. In ignoring its own position regarding plaintiffs' status simply to punish them, IAM breached its duty of fair representation.