Ash v. United Parcel Service, Inc., No. 175
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (4th Circuit) |
| Writing for the Court | Before WINTER, Chief Judge, ERVIN, Circuit Judge, and HAYNSWORTH; PER CURIAM |
| Citation | 800 F.2d 409 |
| Parties | 123 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2541, 105 Lab.Cas. P 12,052 Ernest R. ASH, Appellant, v. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC., a New York Corp., International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen, and Helpers of America, a labor organization, & Chauffeurs, Teamsters & Helpers Local Union, a labor organization, Appellees. Ernest R. ASH, Appellee, v. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC., a New York Corp., Appellant, and International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen, and Helpers of America, a labor organization, & Chauffeurs, Teamsters & Helpers Local Union, a labor organization, Defendants. Ernest R. ASH, Appellee, v. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC., a New York Corp., Defendant, and International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen, and Helpers of America, a labor organization, & Chauffeurs, Teamsters & Helpers Local Union, a labor organization, Appellant. (L), 85-2173 and 85-2175. |
| Docket Number | No. 175,Nos. 85-2024 |
| Decision Date | 11 September 1986 |
Page 409
v.
UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC., a New York Corp., International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen, and
Helpers of America, a labor organization, & Chauffeurs,
Teamsters & Helpers Local Union No. 175, a labor
organization, Appellees.
Ernest R. ASH, Appellee,
v.
UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC., a New York Corp., Appellant,
and
International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen, and Helpers of America, a labor organization,
& Chauffeurs, Teamsters & Helpers Local Union No. 175, a
labor organization, Defendants.
Ernest R. ASH, Appellee,
v.
UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC., a New York Corp., Defendant,
and
International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen, and Helpers of America, a labor
organization, & Chauffeurs, Teamsters &
Helpers Local Union No. 175, a
labor organization, Appellant.
Fourth Circuit.
Decided Sept. 11, 1986.
Page 410
John Taylor, for appellant.
James F. Wallington (Stanley M. Hostler, Hostler & Segal, Charleston, W.Va., for appellee Chauffeurs, Teamsters and Helpers, Local Union No. 175.
David D. Johnson (Charles Q. Gage, Cheryl Harris Wolfe, Jackson, Kelly, Holt & O'Farrell, Charleston, W.Va., on brief), for appellee United Parcel Service, Inc.
Before WINTER, Chief Judge, ERVIN, Circuit Judge, and HAYNSWORTH, Senior Circuit Judge.
PER CURIAM:
This appeal arises out of Ernest Ash's attempt to regain employment at United Parcel Service, Inc. (UPS) after he was discharged for dishonesty. 1 Ash's discharge was upheld through the third step of the grievance procedures defined by the relevant collective bargaining agreement. Ash now seeks judicial relief, claiming that his union, the International Brotherhood of Teamsters (Teamsters), breached its duty of fair representation.
Finding as a matter of law that Ash could not establish the type of grossly deficient conduct required for a breach of the duty of fair representation, the district court granted summary judgment for UPS and the Teamsters. We affirm. 2
I.
UPS discharged Ash after he took excessive unreported breaks and claimed overtime pay for the time required to complete his package deliveries. Ash admitted that he engaged in this conduct. Nevertheless, he filed a grievance because other employees had been suspended, not discharged, for similar behavior. Prior to this episode, Ash had worked for UPS for thirteen years without incident.
The Teamsters pursued Ash's grievance through the third step, a grievance committee hearing. Under the collective bargaining agreement, the committee should have been composed of three union participants, three management participants, and one independent arbitrator. The committee which heard Ash's case was composed of only two union and two management participants. Ash's Teamster representative, Franklin Baxter, did not protest the committee's composition.
At the hearing, Baxter highlighted Ash's good work record, reminded the committee that similar offenders had not been discharged, and argued that the discharge was procedurally defective. He did not assert Ash's innocence. Ash addressed the committee personally and attempted to justify his actions. He now claims that his statement was cut short by a pre-arranged
Page 411
signal from Baxter. At the close of the hearing, however, Ash indicated that he had nothing to add and that he believed that Baxter had properly represented him.The grievance committee upheld the termination. Ash then filed this lawsuit, claiming that Baxter's representation was perfunctory and in bad faith. Ash claims that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mitchell v. Secretary Veterans Affairs, No. CA 204-2237-PMD-RSC.
...L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). Unsupported speculation is not enough to withstand a motion for summary judgment. Ash v. United Parcel Service, Inc., 800 F.2d 409, 411-12 (4th Cir.1986). Indeed, the court should draw reasonable inferences on behalf of the non-moving party, but it must not slip into "sh......
-
Trevathan v. Newport News Shipbuilding & Drydock Co., Civ. A. No. 90-333-N.
...842 (1967); Smith v. Local 7898, United Steelworkers of America, 834 F.2d 93, 96 (4th Cir.1987); Ash v. United Parcel Service, Inc., 800 F.2d 409, 411 (4th Cir.1986) (per curiam). In addition, the Supreme Court has noted that "§ 301 suits may encompass those claims seeking to vindicate `uni......
-
E. W., LLC v. Rahman, No. 1:11cv1380 (JCC/TCB).
...omitted). Unsupported speculation is not enough to withstand a motion for summary judgment. See Ash v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 800 F.2d 409, 411–12 (4th Cir.1986). Summary judgment is appropriate when, after discovery, a party has failed to make a “showing sufficient to establish the exi......
-
America Online, Inc. v. At & T Corp., No. Civ.A.98-1821-A.
...party. See id. Unsupported speculation is not enough to withstand a motion for summary judgment. See Ash v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 800 F.2d 409, 411-12 (4th Cir.1986). Summary judgment is appropriate when, after discovery, a party has failed to make a "showing sufficient to establish th......
-
Mitchell v. Secretary Veterans Affairs, No. CA 204-2237-PMD-RSC.
...L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). Unsupported speculation is not enough to withstand a motion for summary judgment. Ash v. United Parcel Service, Inc., 800 F.2d 409, 411-12 (4th Cir.1986). Indeed, the court should draw reasonable inferences on behalf of the non-moving party, but it must not slip into "sh......
-
Trevathan v. Newport News Shipbuilding & Drydock Co., Civ. A. No. 90-333-N.
...842 (1967); Smith v. Local 7898, United Steelworkers of America, 834 F.2d 93, 96 (4th Cir.1987); Ash v. United Parcel Service, Inc., 800 F.2d 409, 411 (4th Cir.1986) (per curiam). In addition, the Supreme Court has noted that "§ 301 suits may encompass those claims seeking to vindicate `uni......
-
E. W., LLC v. Rahman, No. 1:11cv1380 (JCC/TCB).
...omitted). Unsupported speculation is not enough to withstand a motion for summary judgment. See Ash v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 800 F.2d 409, 411–12 (4th Cir.1986). Summary judgment is appropriate when, after discovery, a party has failed to make a “showing sufficient to establish the exi......
-
America Online, Inc. v. At & T Corp., No. Civ.A.98-1821-A.
...party. See id. Unsupported speculation is not enough to withstand a motion for summary judgment. See Ash v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 800 F.2d 409, 411-12 (4th Cir.1986). Summary judgment is appropriate when, after discovery, a party has failed to make a "showing sufficient to establish th......