Opinion ID: 2460770
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Legal standards for the Union's duty of fair representation

Text: Because Chang-Craft's employment with Alaska Airlines was governed by the CBA and her wrongful termination claim is predicated on a breach of the CBA, [24] section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act applies. [25] Federal substantive law therefore governs Chang-Craft's wrongful termination claim. [26] Under relevant federal law an employee must attempt to exhaust exclusive grievance and arbitration procedures established by a[CBA] and may bring a direct action against a private employer for wrongful termination if the union wrongfully refuses to process the grievance [27] and the employee establishes the union . . . breached its duty of fair representation in its handling of the employee's grievance. [28] This is not an easy standard to meet, and an employee faces a formidable challenge to establish a union's breach of its duty of fair representation. [29] A union breaches its duty of fair representation only when [the union's] conduct toward a member of the collective bargaining unit is arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad faith. [30] The United States Supreme Court has recognized that under the arbitrary prong, a union's actions breach the duty of fair representation only if [the union's conduct] can be fairly characterized as so far outside a wide range of reasonableness that it is wholly irrational or arbitrary. [31] The Court has acknowledged that granting a wide range of reasonableness allows unions necessary discretionary decision-making powers, even if those judgments are ultimately wrong. [32] The Court has further explained that [a] union's conduct can be classified as arbitrary only when it is irrational, . . . without a rational basis or explanation, [33] and that mere negligence by a union does not breach the duty of fair representation. [34] In Schaub v. K & L Distributors, Inc., we provided further guidance for evaluating whether a union's handling of a grievance was arbitrary. [35] We cited approvingly a Ninth Circuit case, Tenorio v. NLRB , observing that a union must investigate grievances brought to it, and that the sufficiency of the union's actions will vary with each case. [36] We acknowledged that although unions have a reasonable range of discretion in handling grievances, that discretion is not limitless; a union may not egregious[ly] disregard union members' rights. [37] And we adopted the Ninth Circuit's approach that in grievances concerning employee termination a union has additional responsibility to exercise special care in handling [the] grievance because [it] concern[s] . . . the most serious sanction an employer can impose. [38]