Court Opinion

ID: 9486387
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 11:46:53.361643+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:51:42.096438
License: Public Domain

KENNEDY, Circuit Judge,
dissenting in part.
I am unable to agree with the panel that there is evidence that the union breached its duty of fair representation in this case. It fully presented plaintiffs case at the local level. The business agent, Leon Cooper, testified that he believed that the employer was within its rights in discharging plaintiff but tried to present a sympathetic case and persuade the employer not to discharge plaintiff for equitable reasons. He investigated the circumstances of plaintiffs conviction and attempted to get the other young person who had been arrested with plaintiff to come and testify about those circumstances to show how minor the crime was and that plaintiff was merely present where marijuana was being used, not using it. The proposed witness refused since he had not told his own employer of his conviction. After it was clear the company would deny the grievance, the business agent persuaded the company to permit plaintiff to resign in lieu of being discharged. Plaintiff initially agreed to that resolution but later changed his mind. The panel attaches importance to a statement made by the business agent that he was sorry about the firing but there was nothing he could do. There was nothing further he could do to change the employer’s mind; he had fully presented the equities of plaintiffs position. While it is true that he could have filed an appeal, the reasons he did not do so are fully explained in his testimony. The business agent testified that he did not take an appeal since he saw no likelihood of securing plaintiffs reinstatement in view of his admission that he had given a false answer on his employment and promotion applications. There was nothing unreasonable or arbitrary in that conclusion. That on appeal this Court made a distinction between dishonesty and a false answer does not mean that a business agent is required to make that kind of sophisticated analysis — one not even made by the district judge. The panel finds that Cooper’s statement belies any contention that the union made a decision that the grievance was not worth pursuing due to its lack of merit. I am at a loss to see how that follows. The statement was made after the business agent told plaintiff there would be no purpose in appealing. He also had said, and continues to say, that the situation, namely firing plaintiff, was unfair; however, he always considered it as within the employer’s rights. Cooper testified that he considered the matter and reached the conclusion that the union could not prevail.
The panel also relies on the fact that plaintiffs shop steward, Robert Naslanic,1 advised him to refuse the offer of resignation because he had a strong case. Plaintiff is not implying that that advice breached the duty of fair representation. The steward’s opinion of the strength of plaintiffs grievance was simply that — his opinion. There is no indication that he knew of a similar grievance concerning a termination for making a false statement in an application for employment that had been won. There is no evidence that the steward’s opinion was shared by the business agent, the decision-maker. Indeed, the business agent testified that he knew of no grievance that had been successful on appeal where an employee had been terminated for false information on an employment application or making other false statements. The names and files of two or three such unsuccessful grievance appeals were provided to counsel for plaintiff. There is nothing in the record to dispute the business agent’s statement. Moreover, he testified that he had resolved a number of false statement cases by persuading the employee to resign so he would not be discharged.
As the panel pointed out, the standard of arbitrariness in a duty of fair representation case is a high one. In Airline Pilots Association, International v. O’Neill, 499 U.S. 65, *137567, 111 S.Ct. 1127, 1130, 113 L.Ed.2d 61 (1991), the Court held: “We further hold that a union’s actions are arbitrary only if, in light of the factual and legal landscape at the time of the union’s actions, the union’s behavior is so far outside a ‘wide range of reasonableness’ as to be irrational.” (emphasis added) (citations omitted). There can be nothing irrational in the union’s decision not to appeal. Nor is there any evidence that the union’s treatment of plaintiff was discriminatory. • Although the business agent was unable to identify any case where he had refused an appeal after an employee was discharged for dishonesty, he testified that usually the employee, if permitted to resign, would do so and there were no requests to take an appeal.
Because there is no evidence that the union breached its duty of fair representation, I would affirm.
I do not believe that the collective bargaining agreement imposed an absolute duty upon the union to take an appeal whenever there was a failure of the parties to resolve the grievance. I, therefore, disagree with the position taken in footnote 6 of the majority opinion.

. Naslanic had been a steward of part-time employees for approximately four years.