Opinion ID: 2978009
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The L.M.R.A.

Text: Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act (“LMRA”), 29 U.S.C. § 185, states, Suits for violation of contracts between an employer and a labor organization representing employees in an industry affecting commerce as defined in this chapter, or between any such labor organizations, may be brought in any district court of the United States having jurisdiction of the parties, without respect to the amount in controversy or without regard to the citizenship of the parties. 29 U.S.C. § 185(a). In enacting the LMRA, Congress codified a strong national policy of judicial enforcement of collective-bargaining agreements. Hines v. Anchor Motor Freight, Inc., 424 U.S. 554, 561-62 (1976). As part of this policy, courts will enforce the dispute resolution procedures which employers and unions generally agree to include in a collective-bargaining agreement. Id. at 8 562. Indeed, the Supreme Court has stated that “[c]ourts are not to usurp those functions which collective-bargaining contracts have properly ‘entrusted to the arbitration tribunal.’” Id. (quoting Steelworkers v. Am. Mfg. Co., 363 U.S. 564, 569 (1960)). Because employees are thus required to pursue the remedies provided in a collective-bargaining agreement through the employees’ union, “the controlling statutes have long been interpreted as imposing upon the bargaining agent a responsibility equal in scope to its authority, ‘the responsibility and duty of fair representation.’” Hines, 424 U.S. at 564 (quoting Humphrey v. Moore, 375 U.S. 335, 342 (1964)). [W]here the union actually utilizes the grievance and arbitration procedures on behalf of he employee, the focus is no longer on the reasons for the union’s failure to act but on whether, contrary to the arbitrator’s decision, the employer breached the contract and whether there is substantial reason to believe that a union breach of duty contributed to the erroneous outcome of the contractual proceedings. Hines, 424 U.S. at 568. Thus, to balance issues of finality and private right to contract with the ability to vindicate one’s contractual rights, the Supreme Court has allowed employees to bring a “hybrid § 301” claim, id. at 570-71, if: the employer has committed a wrongful discharge in breach of that agreement, a breach which could be remedied through the grievance process to the employeeplaintiff’s benefit were it not for the union’s breach of its statutory duty of fair representation to the employee. To leave the employee remediless in such circumstance would, in our opinion, be a great injustice, Vaca v. Sipes, 386 U.S. 171, 185-86 (1967). Accordingly, to establish a hybrid § 301 claim, a plaintiff must show both that (1) the union breached its duty of fair representation, and (2) the employer breached the collective-bargaining agreement. Summers v. Keebler Co., 133 F. App’x 249, 251 (6th Cir. 2005) (citing DelCostello v. Teamsters, 462 U.S. 151, 164-65 (1983)). In addition, “the plaintiff must meet the onerous burden of proving that the grievance process was ‘seriously flawed by the union’s breach of its duty to represent employees honestly and in good faith and without 9 invidious discrimination or arbitrary conduct. Thus, if a union fails to present favorable evidence during the grievance process, this failure may constitute a breach of its duty only if that evidence probably would have brought about a different decision.” VanDerVeer v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 25 F.3d 403, 405 (6th Cir. 1994) (quoting Black v. Ryder/P.I.E. Nationwide, Inc., 15 F.3d 573, 585 (6th Cir. 1994)). 2. The Union did not breach its duty of fair representation To prove that a union has breached its duty of fair representation, a plaintiff must show that “the union’s actions or omissions during the grievance process were arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad faith.” Garrison v. Cassens Transp. Co., 334 F.3d 528, 538 (6th Cir. 2003) (citing Vaca, 386 U.S. at 190). A union’s actions will be found arbitrary only if “in light of the factual and legal landscape at the time of the union’s actions, the union’s behavior is so far outside a ‘wide range of reasonableness,’ as to be irrational.” Air Line Pilots Assoc., Int’l v. O’Neill, 499 U.S. 65, 67 (1991) (internal citations omitted) (quoting Ford Motor Co. v. Huffman, 345 U.S. 330, 338 (1953)). “To show bad faith, a plaintiff must show evidence of fraud, deceitful action, or dishonest conduct.” Summers, 133 F. App’x at 253 (citing Humphrey, 375 U.S. at 348). “The courts have in general assumed that mere negligence, even in the enforcement of a collective-bargaining agreement, would not state a claim for breach of the duty of fair representation, and we enforce that view today.” United Steelworkers of Am., AFL-CIO-CLC v. Rawson, 495 U.S. 362, 372-73 (1990). Moreover “[a]ny substantive examination of a union’s performance . . . must be highly deferential, recognizing the wide latitude that negotiators need for the effective performance of their bargaining responsibilities.” O’Neill, 499 U.S. at 78. 10 Hayes alleges that the Union breached its duty of fair representation by acting arbitrarily and in bad faith in advising him to plead a “mercy case” rather than arguing before the State Panel that Hayes was merely following the long-standing UPS practice of reporting overweight packages as overweight even if they were not labeled as such. Specifically, Hayes maintains, if the Union had advised him otherwise, he would not have admitted to the State Panel that (1) he should not have used his own judgment in determining whether a package was overweight, and (2) he had an impure motive in reporting overweight packages.
A union’s actions will be found arbitrary only if “in light of the factual and legal landscape at the time of the union’s actions, the union’s behavior is so far outside a ‘wide range of reasonableness,’ as to be irrational.” Air Line O’Neill, 499 U.S. at 67 (internal citations omitted) (quoting Huffman, 345 U.S. at 338). Hayes does not allege any fault with the representation of the Union during the discharge meeting or the Grievance Hearing. Indeed, it appears that at the Grievance Hearing level, Union Steward Woodward undertook an investigation into Hayes’s allegations and presented argument regarding the long-standing UPS practice of reporting overweight packages as overweight even if they were not labeled as such. Hayes’s main contention is that the Union acted arbitrarily because the Union’s representation of Hayes before the State Panel was irrational in advising Hayes to admit wrongdoing to the neutral State Panel rather than presenting the argument given at the Grievance Hearing. Hayes further contends that the Union’s representation cause him falsely to admit that (1) he should not have used his own judgment in determining whether a package was overweight, and (2) he had an impure motive in reporting overweight packages, which resulted in the State Panel’s determination to uphold Hayes’s 11 termination. The Union contends that it abandoned its arguments regarding the overweight packages because they were wholly ineffective at the Grievance Hearing. In response, Hayes maintains that because the State Panel was a neutral body, and the Grievance Hearing occurred before a panel made up entirely of UPS representatives, the Union should have made the same arguments it had made at the Grievance Hearing because they could have resulted in a different outcome before the neutral State Panel. At most, the Union’s conduct consists of a tactical error before the State Panel. See Garrison, 334 F.3d at 538. Hayes does not allege intentional misconduct on the part of the Union, and the Union’s decision regarding its strategy before the State seems calculated by the Union to be the strategy most likely to result in reinstatement of Hayes’s position with UPS. Altering tactics following the Grievance Hearing could have been undertaken by the Union for a number of reasons, such as learning new information regarding UPS’s strategy, past experience of the Union before the State Panel, or further discussions with Hayes regarding his actions. Hayes only suggests one possible factor as to why the Union’s own strategy could be found ineffective. It is not the task of a court adjudicating a hybrid § 301 claim to second-guess and theorize regarding what actions a union should have undertaken. Nor does the Union’s representation of Hayes sink to the level of representation found by courts to be arbitrary or irrational. See, e.g., id. at 539 (finding no breach of the duty of fair representation when the union representative failed to argue anything in response to the employer’s determinative affirmative defense); Summers, 133 F. App’x at 253 (finding no breach of the duty of fair representation when the Union decided to abandon the employee’s claim). Moreover, a union’s representative “cannot be held to the same standard as that of [lawyers]” because they do not have the same training or access to the same procedures which lawyers do. 12 Garrison, 334 F.3d at 539. Nor do mistakes, errors, poor judgment, inadequate, or even negligent representation satisfy the arbitrary requirement for demonstrating a breach of the duty of fair representation. Id. at 538; Summers, 133 F. App’x at 253 (citing United Steelworkers v. Rawson, 495 U.S. 352, 373 (1990). The district court was correct in its finding that the Union’s actions were not shown to be “arbitrary” or “irrational.”5
“To show bad faith, a plaintiff must show evidence of fraud, deceitful action, or dishonest conduct.” Summers, 133 F. App’x at 253 (citing Humphrey, 375 U.S. at 348). Hayes does not present a developed argument that the Union’s actions constitute bad faith representation, but merely states that the Union’s representation of him was in bad faith because it “contemplated his being deceitful and dishonest in his statement to the [State Panel], even though his underlying conduct involved no dishonest or deceitfulness in [Hayes’s] own mind.” Hayes’s assertion, however, fails to apprehend that the bad faith must be on the part of the Union, and any dishonesty or deceit on the part of Hayes cannot be attributed to the Union. The Union did not act fraudulently, deceitfully, dishonestly, or in bad faith toward Hayes; nor does Hayes allege that the Union did so. Indeed, the Union endeavored to get Hayes reinstated, even representing Hayes before the State Panel, although the Union had no obligation to do so. Furthermore, Hayes testified during his deposition that no one 5 In any event, Hayes cannot create a genuine issue of material fact by contradicting his own prior testimony. See Biechele v. Cedar Point, Inc., 747 F.2d 209, 215 (6th Cir. 1984) (quoting Perma Research & Development Co. v. Singer Co., 410 F.2d 572, 578 (2d Cir. 1969)). 13 in the Union ever told him to admit to dishonesty. The district court was correct in finding that Hayes could not demonstrate the Union had breached its duty of fair representation.6 C. There exists no need to address the claim of Breach of Contract The district court was not required to, and did not, reach the issue of whether UPS breached the CBA when it discharged Hayes. To establish a hybrid § 301 claim, a plaintiff must show both a breach of the duty of fair representation by the union and a breach of contract by the employer. Summers, 133 F. App’x at 251 (citing DelCostello, 462 U.S. at 164-65). “[T]he two claims are inextricably interdependent.” DelCostello, 462 U.S. at 164 (internal quotations omitted).