Opinion ID: 565162
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Alleged violation of union policy

Text: 25 Finally, the pilots argue that ALPA breached its DFR in bad faith by not following its own internal union procedures. The pilots contend that ALPA did not follow the MEC policy manual requirements that ALPA negotiators keep the MEC informed of negotiations and that the MEC ratify any final agreements. 15 Although it is now settled that the pilots themselves did not have the right to ratify any settlement agreement, the pilots argue that the 1980 MEC policy manual gave their elected representatives ratification rights. ALPA contends that this manual was superseded first by the 1982 ALPA Constitution 16 and then by MEC resolutions passed in 1984 17 and 1985. 18 The pilots contend that neither of these resolutions could abrogate the MEC policy manual because, according to the manual, any such changes required presentation to the membership before taking effect and no such presentation occurred here. 19 The pilots further argue that the 1985 resolution authorizes negotiators only to pursue a settlement with Continental, not to conclude one. They also claim that affidavits showing that the 1985 resolution did not authorize the negotiators to make a final agreement without approval 20 preclude a finding that the resolution conferred authority on them to reach an agreement without ratification. 26 While the district court found that the 1984 resolution was not properly part of the policy of [the MEC], it further found that what was done through other meetings was sufficient, I think, to confer authority on the negotiating agents for the MEC, who were the general agents for the membership. 21 The district court explained, I have seen nothing in the documents that would preclude the conferring of a plenary binding general agency on some representative sent to negotiate the contract, whether it's a working agreement or back-to-work agreement. 22 ALPA argues that the district court properly interpreted the various union documents as providing for no ratification by the full MEC of its own negotiators' settlement. 27 Moreover, ALPA correctly argues that, as a union, its interpretation of its own governing documents should be accorded deference unless it is 'patently unreasonable.'  Newell v. International Bhd. of Elec. Workers, 789 F.2d 1186, 1189 (5th Cir.1986) (citations omitted). The pilots argue that because ALPA has acted in bad faith, we may not simply defer to its interpretation. See Motion Picture & Videotape Editors Guild, Local 776 v. International Sound Technicians, Local 695, 800 F.2d 973, 975 (9th Cir.1986) (a court should not disturb a union's interpretations of its own documents absent bad faith), cert. denied, 483 U.S. 1022, 107 S.Ct. 3267, 97 L.Ed.2d 765 (1987). However, as explained above, the pilots have not met the demanding standard to demonstrate ALPA's bad faith. Thus we defer to ALPA's interpretation of the 1985 resolution, the 1982 Constitution, and their combined effect on the 1980 MEC policy manual. ALPA's interpretation of its governing documents is not unreasonable and by following its own interpretation ALPA did not breach its DFR in bad faith. 23 The district court correctly granted summary judgment on this issue. 28 In conclusion, we find that the pilots have not presented sufficient evidence to raise a triable issue on ALPA's alleged bad faith breach of its duty of fair representation. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court dismissing the pilots' suit is 29 AFFIRMED.