Opinion ID: 655071
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: plaintiff's claim of breach of fair representation

Text: 45 The plaintiff alleges that the union did not fairly represent him but, in essence, the plaintiff is challenging the outcome of arbitration under a CBA. This court reviews labor arbitration awards on a very limited basis. Interstate Brands v. Chauffeurs, Teamsters Local 135, 909 F.2d 885 (6th Cir.1990) (citing to United Paperworkers Int'l Union v. Misco, Inc., 484 U.S. 29 (1987)), cert. denied, 111 S.Ct. 1104 (1991). Essentially, we look to satisfy ourselves that the award draws its essence from the CBA. Id. at 888. This highly deferential standard of review is perhaps most commonly extended to the substantive issue of what constitutes sufficient and reasonable cause for discharge. Id. at 889. 46 In order to satisfy his burden, the plaintiff must establish a breach of the union's duty of fair representation and the breach must have contributed to the arbitrator's making an erroneous decision. Wood v. Int'l Broth. of Teamsters, 807 F.2d 493, 500 (6th Cir.1986), cert. denied, 483 U.S. 1006 (1987). The union presented to the arbitrator all of the arguments that the plaintiff claims as error in this appeal, except for the seniority challenge which the arbitrator addressed. The plaintiff did not present any evidence to indicate how the arbitration award was affected by any alleged failure on the union's part. Summary judgment was appropriate in this respect also. See Vaca v. Sipes, 386 U.S. 171 (1967). 47