Opinion ID: 461012
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: claims against the unions

Text: 84 The district court concluded that the evidence did not support the plaintiffs' claims about racial discrimination in the general handling of grievances by the unions, including references to arbitration. The delay in processing grievances and the decision to abandon those of a less serious nature were, in the court's view, practices legitimately complained of by both black and white workers. However, the court did find that the unions discriminated against the plaintiff class in violation of both Sec. 1981 and Title VII. 85 Collective bargaining agreements beginning in 1965 had prohibited the company from discriminating against any employee, probationary or permanent, on racial grounds. Nevertheless, although they knew that blacks were being discharged at a disproportionate rate during the probationary period, the locals failed to file grievances challenging that practice, pursuant to a union policy of not grieving complaints of probationary employees. 9 86 The unions were reluctant to assert racial bias as a basis for a grievance even when they believed that element was implicated. The court found this policy to perpetuate the discriminatory environment and render the non-discrimination clause in the collective bargaining agreement a dead letter. 580 F.Supp. at 1160. 87 The unions argued before the district court that simple inactivity could not make them liable under Title VII or Sec. 1981. The district court rejected that contention, but went on to hold that the evidence in this case proves far more than mere passivity on the part of the unions. The court further commented that [a] union which intentionally avoids asserting discrimination claims, either so as not to antagonize the employer and thus improve its chances of success on other issues, or in deference to the perceived desires of its white membership, is liable under both Title [VII] and Sec. 1981 regardless of its leadership's favorable disposition toward blacks. Id. at 1160. 88 On appeal, the unions repeat their argument that mere passivity should not subject them to liability because such inaction is not within the scope of Sec. 703(c) of Title VII addressing union responsibility. That section of the Act provides in pertinent part that it is an unlawful employment practice for a union: 89 (1) to exclude or to expel from its membership, or otherwise to discriminate against, any individual because of his race, color, religion, sex, or national origin; 90