Court Opinion

ID: 9895796
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-08 18:00:40.813226+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:12:48.011301
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                         FILED
                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                      NOV 8 2023
                                                                       MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                        U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                              FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

    KEVIN E. BYBEE, JOHN R. SCHOLZ,                 No.   22-16280
    VICTOR H. DRUMHELLER, and SALLY
    A. DILL, as individuals and plan                D.C. No.
    participants in The Continental Retirement      3:18-cv-06632-JD
    Plan, on behalf of themselves and all others
    similarly situated and on behalf of The
    Continental Retirement Plan,
                                                    MEMORANDUM*
                    Plaintiffs-Appellants,

     v.

    INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF
    TEAMSTERS; JAMES P. HOFFA, in his
    official capacity as the General President of
    the International Brotherhood of Teamsters;
    PETER FINN, in his official capacity as
    Principal Officer of Teamsters Local 210;
    and UNITED AIRLINES, INC., a Delaware
    corporation,
                     Defendants-Appellees.

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                        for the Northern District of California
                       James Donato, District Judge, Presiding

                        Argued and Submitted October 18, 2023
                              San Francisco, California

Before: BEA, CHRISTEN, and JOHNSTONE, Circuit Judges.

*
 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as
provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
   Plaintiffs Kevin Bybee, John Scholz, Victor Drumheller, and Sally Dill appeal

the district court’s order dismissing Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint

(“SAC”) with prejudice. Because the parties are familiar with the facts, we do not

recount them here. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we review de

novo, Arrington v. Wong, 237 F.3d 1066, 1069 (9th Cir. 2001), and we affirm.

   1. Article 19 of Plaintiffs’ 2010 collective bargaining agreement (“2010 CBA”)

requires aggrieved employees to present complaints to their supervisor “within

(30) days after the employee or his representative could reasonably have

knowledge of the incident upon which the complaint is based.” The SAC indicates

that, since at least 2011, Plaintiffs believed they were entitled to an elective vote to

enroll in the Continental Airlines Retirement Plan (“CARP”) based on the

“me-too” provision in Letter of Agreement 05-03M (“LOA 05-03M”).

   The first grievance alleging a breach of the 2010 CBA, and specifically LOA

05-03M, was filed with a United supervisor on September 1, 2016. This grievance,

like Plaintiffs’ later-filed grievances, alleged that the 2010 merger of United Air

Lines, Inc. and Continental Airlines, Inc. triggered United’s obligations under

LOA 05-03M to provide an elective vote for enrollment in CARP. As a remedy

for United’s failure to provide an elective vote at the time of the merger, the

grievances sought Plaintiffs’ retroactive enrollment in CARP from either October

2010 or November 2011. In support of their purported entitlement to this remedy,

                                           2
the SAC alleges that IBT had promised Plaintiffs “year after year” that any pension

decision would be made retroactive to the date of the merger.

   The alleged promises that Plaintiffs would be allowed to join CARP

retroactively, however, were made by IBT, not United, and were not part of the

collective bargaining agreements or LOA 05-03M. Accordingly, regardless of

whether the failure to make CARP enrollment retroactive could serve as the basis

of a breach of duty of fair representation (“DFR”) claim against IBT, it cannot

support a claim against United for breach of the 2010 CBA.

   Because Plaintiffs had knowledge that they were not provided an elective vote

when that right was allegedly triggered on either October 1, 2010 or November 30,

2011, Plaintiffs’ grievances filed with United approximately four to five years later

were untimely under the grievance procedure of the 2010 CBA.

   A. Because the grievances were untimely filed, we conclude that IBT’s

exercise of judgment and reliance on the Gleason Memo—which also concluded,

inter alia, that the grievances were time-barred—were not “arbitrary,

discriminatory, or in bad faith.” Marquez v. Screen Actors Guild, Inc., 525 U.S.

33, 44 (1998). Accordingly, the district court properly ruled that IBT did not

breach its duty of fair representation when it withdrew Plaintiffs’ grievances.

   B. The district court also properly concluded that Plaintiffs’ breach of DFR

claim regarding IBT’s alleged failure to safeguard Plaintiffs’ rights during

                                          3
negotiations with United was time-barred under the six-month statute of limitations

applicable to claims arising under the Railway Labor Act (“RLA”). Although

Plaintiffs acknowledge that they became aware of IBT’s abandonment of LOA 05-

03M in 2016, the present action was not initiated until October 31, 2018—more

than two years after Plaintiffs knew of the alleged breach of the DFR. See Galindo

v. Stoody Co., 793 F.2d 1502, 1509 (9th Cir. 1986).

   C. The breach of contract claim alleged in the SAC is a “minor” dispute

because it arises from the terms of the CBA. The district court thus correctly

concluded it did not have jurisdiction over this claim. Plaintiffs did not plausibly

plead that United “colluded” with IBT to discriminate against them or that it

repudiated the grievance process once IBT withdrew the grievances. Plaintiffs also

did not plausibly plead that IBT wrongfully refused to process their grievance,

given IBT’s reliance on the Gleason Memo and our conclusion that the grievances

were untimely when they were filed. Accordingly, no exception to the

jurisdictional bar on adjudicating minor contractual disputes exists in this case.

See Vaca v. Sipes, 386 U.S. 171, 185 (1967); Glover v. St. Louis-S.F. Ry. Co., 393

U.S. 324, 331 (1969).

   D. Assuming without deciding that Plaintiffs had the right to arbitrate their

grievances without union representation under section 184 of the RLA, their ability

to do so would be subject to the grievance process specified in the 2010 CBA. See

                                          4
Int’l Bhd. of Teamsters, Airlines Div. v. Allegiant Air, LLC, 788 F.3d 1080, 1086

(9th Cir. 2015) (“[T]he RLA requires employees and carriers first to exhaust the

grievance procedure specified in a collective bargaining agreement.”); see also 45

U.S.C. § 184 (requiring disputes to “be handled in the usual manner”) (emphasis

added). Because Plaintiffs’ grievances had not been timely filed, Plaintiffs had no

live grievance to arbitrate before the board of adjustment. Accordingly, the section

184 claim was properly dismissed.

   E. The district court also properly dismissed Plaintiffs’ claim for breach of

fiduciary duty under section 501 of the Labor-Management Reporting and

Disclosure Act. Plaintiffs have not alleged that they satisfied the conditions

precedent to raise this claim by making a demand on IBT, submitting a verified

application, or receiving leave to file this complaint. See Cowger v. Rohrbach, 868

F.2d 1064, 1066 (9th Cir. 1989) (citing 29 U.S.C. § 501(b)). On the merits, the

allegations of breach of the union officials’ individual duties are speculative and

would separately fail for that reason.

   F. The district court properly dismissed Counts V–X alleging violations of

ERISA because CARP itself does not include a provision that entitles Plaintiffs to

be enrolled in the plan. At best, Plaintiffs’ claim arises from the CBA, not CARP,

and because the claim depends solely on the interpretation of the CBA, it is a

“minor” dispute over which this court lacks jurisdiction. See Long v. Flying Tiger

                                          5
Line, Inc. Fixed Pension Plan for Pilots, 994 F.2d 692, 694 (9th Cir. 1993) (“An

employee pension plan falls within the scope of the Railway Labor Act and is

subject to its mandatory arbitration procedures.”). Plaintiffs do not allege that the

Profit-Sharing Plan is subject to ERISA, so the PSP claim also lacks merit.

   2. Finally, the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the

SAC with prejudice. Because there are no additional facts that could be pleaded

that would save any of the dismissed claims, amendment would clearly be futile.

See Kendall v. Visa U.S.A., Inc., 518 F.3d 1042, 1052 (9th Cir. 2008).

      AFFIRMED.

                                          6