Alford v. General Motors Corp.

• Decision Date: 22 February 1991
• Docket Number: 90-1387,Nos. 89-2424,s. 89-2424
• Citation: 926 F.2d 528
• Parties: 136 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2628, 56 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 40,672, 118 Lab.Cas. P 10,569 Terry ALFORD, et al., Plaintiffs, Jefferson Clay, Alen Davis, Gazelle Watkins (90-1387); and Raymond D. Vargo (89-2424), Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation, Defendant-Appellee.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit

Page 528

926 F.2d 528

136 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2628, 56 Empl. Prac. Dec. P

40,672,

118 Lab.Cas. P 10,569

Terry ALFORD, et al., Plaintiffs Jefferson Clay, Alen Davis, Gazelle Watkins (90-1387); and Raymond D. Vargo (89-2424), Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation Defendant-Appellee.

Nos. 89-2424, 90-1387.

United States Court of Appeals Sixth Circuit.

Argued Jan. 31, 1991.

Decided Feb. 22, 1991.

Lawrence S. Katkowsky (argued), Southfield, Mich., for plaintiffs-appellants.

William B. Balke, Ronald J. Santo (argued), Dykema, Gossett, Spencer, Goodnow & Trigg, Maurice G. Jenkins, M. Beth Sax, General Motors Corp., Office of the General Counsel, Detroit, Mich., for General Motors Corp.

Mark L. Heinen, Gregory, Moore, Jeakle & Heinen, Detroit, Mich., for United Plant Guard Workers of America, Local 114, and International Union, United Plant Guard Workers of America (UPGWA).

Before MARTIN and BOGGS, Circuit Judges, and BELL, District Judge. ^*

BOYCE F. MARTIN, Jr., Circuit Judge.

These cases were consolidated for purposes of appeal as they both arise from the same operative facts and present identical issues for review. Fed.R.App.P. 3(b).

Plaintiffs all were employed by General Motors as temporary "per diem" security guards. As "per diem" security guards, plaintiffs were all members of and represented by the Local 114, United Plant Guard Workers of America. Plaintiffs' employment relationship with GM was governed by the GM-UPGWA 1984 collective bargaining agreement, dated December 4, 1984.

Plaintiffs' eligibility for regular employment was governed by the General Motors salary policy on employment of temporary security officers, dated December 4, 1984, and attached at page 49 of the collective bargaining agreement. ¹

In the discussion of this matter, the Corporation advised the Union that the intent of utilizing temporary plant security officers is to fill positions or vacancies that are of a temporary nature and not to take the place of hiring regular plant security officers. Salaried Policy provides that the employment of such temporary security officers is not to extend beyond a twelve month period for temporary employees hired on a day-to-day basis. If such assignment is to exceed the limits specified, the employee is to be separated or placed on a regular basis. Additionally, recurring assignments are contrary to the intent of these policies.

If, however, due to unusual circumstances, such employment does exceed twelve continuous months, the employee shall thereafter be given preference in the bargaining unit over a new employee to fill a future permanent position or, in the interim, another temporary position.

....

The Corporation advised the Union that if the Union feels there are abuses of these policies, the Corporation will, upon request, meet with the International Union to review the matter.

Plaintiffs all worked in excess of twelve months, each at the same plant and at the same position, without being offered permanent employment by GM. In response to this inaction on the part of GM, plaintiffs timely filed grievances through their union. These grievances were consolidated as joint grievance number JG-2-87. This grievance was processed through each of the four steps of the complaint procedure outlined in the collective bargaining agreement. Pursuant to paragraph 47 of the collective bargaining agreement, the Union further appealed the grievance, seeking a The parties stipulated that in processing grievance JG-2-87 the union did not breach its duty of fair representation to those employees covered by the grievance.

                meeting between GM and the Union. 2   This meeting was held on September 27, 1988, without reaching a settlement
                

Paragraph 36 of the collective bargaining agreement governs the "finality" of the grievance procedure. It provides, in pertinent part:

(36) There shall be no appeal from an umpire's decision, which will be final or binding on the Union and its members, the employee or employees involved, and the Corporation. The Union will discourage any attempt of its members and will not encourage or cooperate with any of its members in any appeal to any court or Labor Board from the decision of an umpire.

With respect to the processing, disposition and/or settlement initiated under the Complaint Procedure Section of this Agreement, and with respect to any court action claiming or alleging a violation of this Agreement or any local or other agreement amendatory or supplemental hereto, the Union shall be the sole and exclusive representative of the employee or employees covered by this Agreement. The disposition or settlement, by and between the Corporation and the Union, of any complaint or other matter, shall constitute a full and complete settlement thereof and shall be final and binding upon the Union and its members, the employee or employees involved and the Corporation.

Neither the Corporation, nor the Union, nor any employee or group of employees, may initiate or cause to be initiated or press any court action claiming or alleging a violation of this Agreement or any local or other agreement amendatory or supplemental hereto, where such claim is also the subject matter of a complaint which is then open at any step of this Complaint Procedure.

No employee or former employee shall have any right under this Agreement in any claim, proceeding, action or otherwise on the basis, or by reason, of any claim that the Union nor any Union officer or representative has acted or failed to act relative to presentation, prosecution or settlement of any complaint or other matter as to which the Union or any Union officer or representative has authority or discretion to act or not to act under the terms of the Agreement.

Paragraph 49 of the agreement bans any strikes by the Union for any reason during the lifetime of the contract.

Plaintiffs originally filed suit in Wayne County, Michigan circuit court alleging that GM's failure to offer them permanent positions constituted a breach of the parties' collective bargaining agreement. Plaintiffs also claimed that the Union breached its duty of fair representation. Both suits were removed to United States District Court. By stipulation, the Union was dismissed from both actions. GM moved for summary judgment in both suits claiming that the collective bargaining agreement grievance procedures were exclusive and final. Summary judgment was granted in each case and each suit was dismissed. Plaintiffs filed timely appeals.

Section 301(a) of the Labor Management Relations Act provides a federal remedy for breach of a collective bargaining agreement. 29 U.S.C. Sec. 185(a). An employee may bring an action under Sec. 301 against his employer if he has been dismissed in violation of the collective bargaining agreement. Hines v. Anchor Motor Freight, 424 U.S. 554, 562, 96 S.Ct. 1048, 1055, 47 L.Ed.2d 231 (1976). However, an employee is required to exhaust any grievance procedure contained in the collective bargaining agreement. Clayton v. International Union, 451 U.S. 679, 101 Recently, in Groves v. Ring Screw Works, Ferndale Fastner Division, --- U.S. ----, 111 S.Ct. 498, 112 L.Ed.2d 508 (1990), the...