Court Opinion

ID: 2963889
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:16:53.321297+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:18:24.535855
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                              _________________________

          No. 95-1881

                                 JOSE AYALA, ET AL.,

                               Plaintiffs, Appellants,

                                          v.

               UNION DE TRONQUISTAS DE PUERTO RICO, LOCAL 901, ET AL.,

                                Defendants, Appellees.

                              _________________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

                    [Hon. Hector M. Laffitte, U.S. District Judge]
                                              ___________________

                              _________________________

                                        Before

                                Selya, Circuit Judge,
                                       _____________

                      Aldrich and Coffin, Senior Circuit Judges.
                                          _____________________

                              _________________________

               John Ward Llambias on brief for appellants.
               __________________
               Ana  Rosa Biascoechea,  Raquel  M. Dulzaides,  and  Jimenez,
               _____________________   ____________________        ________
          Graffam & Lausell on consolidated brief for appellees.
          _________________

                                 ____________________

                                   January 24, 1996
                                 ____________________

                    SELYA, Circuit Judge.  This is a hybrid action  brought
                    SELYA, Circuit Judge.
                           _____________

          pursuant to section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act, 29

          U.S.C.   185 (1994).   In it, the plaintiffs complain that  Union

          de Tronquistas de  Puerto Rico,  Local 901 (the  Union) acted  in

          dereliction  of its duty  of fair representation,  and that their

          employer,  Crowley American  Transport, Inc.  (Crowley), violated

          the collective bargaining agreement (the CBA)  that was in effect

          at  the  times  relevant  hereto.    The  defendants  denied  the

          plaintiffs'  allegations.    In  due course,  the district  court

          granted the  defendants' motion for summary judgment.   See Ayala
                                                                  ___ _____

          v.  Union de  Tronquistas de  P.R., Local  901, C.A.  No. 94-2234
              __________________________________________

          (HL),  slip op. (D.P.R. June  16, 1995).   The plaintiffs appeal.

          We summarily affirm.

                    There is no need to tarry.  Having  read the record and

          carefully  considered the  parties' briefs,  we find no  basis to

          disturb  the district  court's  well-reasoned decision.   To  the

          precise  contrary, we regard this as a paradigmatic case in which

          to put  into practice our stated belief that, when "a trial court

          has  produced a  first-rate  work product,  a reviewing  tribunal

          should  hesitate to wax longiloquent simply to hear its own words

          resonate."  In  re San Juan Dupont  Plaza Hotel Fire  Litig., 989
                      ________________________________________________

          F.2d  36,  38  (1st Cir.  1993).    Consequently,  we affirm  the

          judgment for substantially the  reasons elucidated in the opinion

          below.  We add only three brief comments.

                    First:  The plaintiffs  (who are members of  Local 901)
                    First:
                    _____

          urge   that   they  were   entitled   to   seniority  rights   by

                                          2

          classification,  and  that,  therefore,  the  Union  should  have

          safeguarded them against being "bumped" from their laborers' jobs

          by  non-laborers  with  greater  company-wide  seniority.    This

          exhortation is unavailing.  While the CBA is admittedly ambiguous

          on the key  point of what sort of seniority  (company-wide or in-

          classification)  prevails in respect to laborers' positions, past

          practice over many years   the so-called law of the  shop   makes

          it  transpicuously clear that  the most plausible  reading of the

          CBA favors  company-wide seniority  as the  appropriate measure.1

          In  this situation,  the law  of the  shop controls.   See United
                                                                 ___ ______

          Steelworkers  v. Warrior  & Gulf  Navig. Co.,  363 U.S.  574, 580
          ____________     ___________________________

          (1960).

                    Second:   In all  events, disaffected employees  do not
                    Second:
                    ______

          possess  an  absolute  right  to  have  their  union  shepherd  a

          complaint through the grievance  process to the bitter end.   "In

          the   context  of   employee   grievances,  the   duty  of   fair

          representation  is  not a  straitjacket  which  forces unions  to

          pursue  grievance   remedies  under  the   collective  bargaining

          agreement in every case where an employee has a complaint against

          the company.  . . .  A  union is accorded considerable discretion

          in dealing  with  grievance  matters,  and it  may  consider  the

          interests  of all  its members  when deciding  whether or  not to

          press the claims  of an  individual employee."   Seymour v.  Olin
                                                           _______     ____

          Corp., 666 F.2d  202, 208  (Former 5th Cir.  1982).  Put  another
          _____
                              
          ____________________

               1It  is worthy of note  that several of  the plaintiffs were
          themselves,   on   earlier   occasions,   beneficiaries   of  the
          interpretation that they now strain to repudiate.

                                          3

          way,  a union, caught in the middle between dueling employees, is

          not  obliged to throw some union members  to the wolves merely to

          placate others.

                    In this case,  the Union offered to process a grievance

          that presented both sides of the  story.  The plaintiffs asked to

          have  this   proposed  grievance  withdrawn.     They  sought  to

          substitute  in  its  place  a grievance  containing  a  one-sided

          presentation and  adamantly insisted that the  Union embrace this

          version.    Understandably, the  Union declined  to  do so.   The

          undisputed facts  reveal that the Union acted  reasonably both in

          offering  to press a balanced grievance and in refusing to grieve

          on the plaintiffs' terms.  No  more is exigible.  See, e.g., Vaca
          ________________________                          ___  ____  ____

          v. Sipes, 386 U.S.  171, 190-91 (1967); De Arroyo v. Sindicato de
             _____                                _________    ____________

          Trabajadores  Packinghouse, 425  F.2d  281, 284  n.2 (1st  Cir.),
          __________________________

          cert. denied, 400 U.S. 877 (1970).
          _____ ______

                    This   observation  leads   directly   to   a   further

          observation.  Vaca teaches that, even if a union misconstrues the
                        ____

          CBA, its  misconstruction,  simpliciter, does  not  constitute  a
                                      ___________

          breach of its duty of fair representation.  See Vaca, 386 U.S. at
                                                      ___ ____

          190.  There  is no breach  unless the union's  "conduct toward  a

          member   of  the   collective  bargaining   unit   is  arbitrary,

          discriminatory or in  bad faith."   Id.; accord  Air Line  Pilots
                                              ___  ______  ________________

          Ass'n  v. O'Neill,  499 U.S.  65, 67  (1991); Alicea  v. Suffield
          _____     _______                             ______     ________

          Poultry,  Inc.,  902 F.2d  125, 130  (1st  Cir. 1990).    In this
          ______________

          instance, no  rational factfinder  could conclude that  the Union

          crossed that line.

                                          4

                    Third:  The plaintiffs' case against Crowley is no more
                    Third:
                    _____

          robust than  their case against the Union.  In point of fact, the

          inadequacy of  the plaintiffs'  claim against the  Union presages

          the  inadequacy  of their  claim against  Crowley.   In  order to

          excuse  their  failure to  exhaust  contractual  remedies in  the

          conventional manner and prevail in a hybrid section 301 action on

          a  theory  that  the   employer  violated  the  CBA,  disgruntled

          employees  must  first  prevail on  their  unfair  representation

          claim.  See Breininger v. Sheet Metal Workers Int'l, 493 U.S. 67,
                  ___ __________    _________________________

          82 (1989);  DelCostello v.  International Bhd. of  Teamsters, 462
                      ___________     ________________________________

          U.S.   151,  164-65   (1983);  Chaparro-Febus   v.  International
                                         ______________       _____________

          Longshoremen  Ass'n, Local  1575,  983 F.2d  325,  330 (1st  Cir.
          ________________________________

          1992).  Failing in  the first instance, the plaintiffs  also fail

          in the second instance.

                    Mindful,  as  we  are,  of the  district  court's  more

          exegetic  treatment of these (and  other) matters, we  need go no

          further.  The judgment below is summarily affirmed.  See 1st Cir.
                                                               ___

          R. 27.1.

                    Affirmed.
                    Affirmed.
                    ________

                                          5