Opinion ID: 1256266
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: How Are Damages Against the Union to Be Measured?

Text: Assuming that Feichtinger makes the requisite showing on remand so as to deprive the arbitration decision of its preclusive effect, he will be entitled to seek damages. We briefly address this issue given the possibility that it will become ripe on remand, and given the union's implicit argument that the dismissal or settlement of Feichtinger's claims against his employer prevents him from showing what damages the union may owe. In employee hybrid suits for wrongful discharge and breach of a union's duty of fair representation, the federal courts apportion damages between the employer and union according to the damages caused by each defendant. [35] Federal law does not control this case. [36] But the union urges us to look to the federal standard of assessing damages. Feichtinger, on the other hand, argues that we should follow the attorney malpractice model for damages. Under this standard, as Feichtinger describes it, a union that breaches its duty of fair representation becomes liable for all damages the employee suffers, including those flowing from the employee's wrongful discharge. We reject the attorney malpractice model of damage assessment for unfair representation cases and hold that in hybrid suits we will follow the federal model of apportioning damages as set out in Vaca v. Sipes [37] and subsequent federal cases. In Vaca, the Supreme Court squarely rejected the imposition of joint and several liability upon a union for its breach of its duty of fair representation. [38] Rather, it required courts to apportion damages between an employer and union based on fault. [39] The Supreme Court explained that an award against a union that includes damages attributable only to the employer would impose too great a hardship on the union, even if the union had a right of indemnification against the employer. [40] Although only the employer is responsible for back-pay following a wrongful discharge, subsequent federal decisions have made it clear that the union is responsible for any increases in damages, including lost wages, caused by the union's breach. [41] The federal courts have not agreed upon a precise method of apportionment. Two models currently exist. One bases apportionment on the hypothetical date upon which the employee would have been reinstated had the union fulfilled its duty of fair representation. [42] The employer is liable for losses incurred before that date; the union is liable for losses incurred after that date. [43] The other model apportions damages on a percentage basis, similar to comparative fault. [44] We need not decide now which of the two federal models Alaska should follow. Because the superior court has not yet had an opportunity to consider whether one is particularly appropriate to these facts and because the parties' briefs do not squarely address this question, we do not address this issue and await an appeal directly presenting it to us.