Opinion ID: 698684
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Right to a Private Attorney

Text: 26 Finally, Garcia alleges that the Union interfered with his right to retain a private attorney. He claims Union representatives informed him that it was against Illinois law for him to have his own attorney. Appellant's Br. at 6. The Union denies having made the statement. Appellee Local 1031's Br. at 30. Again, however, for purposes of summary judgment we must view the record and all inferences drawn from it in the light most favorable to the opposing party. Karazanos v. Navistar Intern. Transp. Corp., 948 F.2d 332 (7th Cir.1991). 27 In addressing this issue, we certainly recognize the importance of the right to seek the advice of an attorney. Employment disputes often involve complex issues of labor law, and it is understandable that an employee receiving union representation would also wish to speak to a private attorney about his case. As discussed above, union attorneys not only represent individual employees, but the union as a whole. They are rightfully motivated by potentially conflicting concerns for the union and the collective bargaining process. Accordingly, union priorities may sometimes adversely affect the interests of the individual employee. Employees thus have an interest in retaining an attorney with no such conflict of interest to advise them of the process, their options and the merits of the case. Seymour, 666 F.2d at 209-10. 28 However, there are limitations which may be placed on one's right to counsel in the unique context of labor relations. Unions are given considerable discretion in handling grievance procedures. This discretion includes the right to limit the role of outside attorneys in the grievance process. See, e.g., Seymour, 666 F.2d at 209; Castelli, 752 F.2d at 1483 (no court has adopted the rule that employees are entitled to independently retained counsel in arbitration proceedings, or that the exclusion of such attorneys from arbitration violates the duty of fair representation); Malone v. United States Postal Service, 526 F.2d 1099 (6th Cir.1975) (holding that a Postal Services employee is not entitled to be represented by someone other than the exclusive union representative in arbitration proceedings). 29 Garcia claims that a jury could find that the Union acted arbitrarily because the Union's standard practice was to allow employees to hire their own attorneys, and to allow them to be present at the arbitration hearing, so long as the Union representatives were the only ones presenting the case to the arbitrator. However, a plaintiff must show more than a union's failure to act in accordance with its standard procedure to establish that the union's activities were arbitrary. 5 Just as when a union decides not to pursue a case, its decision to disallow the presence of an independently-retained attorney in a particular case is not, standing alone, enough to show that the union acted arbitrarily. It is the union's prerogative to make such decisions in the grievance process to protect the interests of the union as well as the employee. Here, the Union representative may have exercised his discretion to prevent an attorney from participating in the arbitration hearing because he felt the attorney's presence might encourage arguments which were meritless and misrepresented the case. Castelli, 752 F.2d at 1484 (the participation of an employee's privately owned counsel in the grievance process could bypass the union and undermine the policy of exclusive representation). 30 However, Garcia complains not only about the Union's refusal to allow an outside attorney to participate in the proceedings, but also about the Union's misrepresentations regarding his right to consult an attorney at all. He claims that the Union representatives led him to believe that merely seeking the advice of an independently retained counsel would be against the law, and that he was thus misled as to the nature of his rights. Garcia argues that a jury could find the Union's statement arbitrary or made in bad faith. 6 31 Garcia analogizes his situation to that in Seymour, 666 F.2d 202, where the Fifth Circuit found that unions may not unduly preclude an employee from retaining independent counsel. In Seymour, the union informed the employee that it would not pursue his grievance unless he fired his attorney. He refused to fire his attorney, and the union refused to pursue his claim. The Seymour court recognized that the union had considerable discretion in handling employee grievances, and could choose not to pursue even meritorious grievances without giving rise to a breach of the duty of fair representation. Id. at 208. However, the court found that the union had refused to pursue the grievance merely because Seymour refused to fire his attorney. The court concluded that such an insupportable motive was arbitrary and that the union had violated its duty of fair representation. Id. 32 In Seymour the union's actions clearly caused harm to the employee. Because of its objection to his attorney, the union did not pursue Seymour's grievance at all. There was no question there that the outcome could have been different had the union not barred the attorney. Yet in Garcia's case there is no such evidence of harm. Even if we accept the possibility that a jury could find that the Union, arbitrarily or in bad faith, told Garcia that he was not allowed to have a private attorney, Garcia has not established that the outcome would probably have been different had he retained a private attorney. Conn v. GATX Terminals Corp., 18 F.3d 417 (7th Cir.1994) (plaintiff cannot recover for harmless breach of duty of fair representation); Souter v. International Union, 993 F.2d 595 (7th Cir.1993); Ooley, 961 F.2d 1293. Garcia offered no proof to this court or to the district court that there was any possibility of a different outcome had he retained his own attorney. He concedes that he had no right to be represented by his own counsel at any step of the grievance process, including the arbitration hearing, Mem.Op. at 23, and claims only that his personal attorney would somehow have enabled Garcia to play a less passive role in the proceedings. However, Stanton was allowed to pursue his own strategy, and was not required to follow any advice from an outside attorney. Again, Stanton's concerns here involve both Garcia and the Union itself. It is quite possible that Stanton chose the course he did because he was afraid of damaging the Union's credibility if he put Garcia on the stand to contradict his own written and oral statements once again. A private attorney would have had no power to force Stanton to follow a strategy that Stanton found detrimental to the Union. Thus even if Garcia had hired his own attorney, he provides no evidence that it would have made a difference in the outcome of his case. 33 Therefore, although we are certainly in general unsympathetic to union efforts to block the hiring of private attorneys, Garcia simply has not offered sufficient proof to establish a viable claim of arbitrary or bad faith conduct. 34 For these reasons, the judgment of the district court is 35 AFFIRMED.