Cameron v. Chang–craft, S–13489.

Decision Date15 April 2011
Docket NumberNo. S–13489.,S–13489.
PartiesWilliam CAMERON and Alaska Airlines, Inc., Appellants,v.Deborah CHANG–CRAFT, Appellee.
CourtAlaska Supreme Court

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Douglas S. Parker, Littler Mendelson, P.C., Portland, Oregon, Jennifer M. Coughlin, K & L Gates, Anchorage, for Appellants.Kenneth W. Legacki, Anchorage, for Appellee.Before: CARPENETI, Chief Justice, FABE and WINFREE, Justices.

OPINION

WINFREE, Justice.I. INTRODUCTION

An employee filed suit against her employer for wrongful termination after her union refused to take her grievance to arbitration under the applicable collective bargaining agreement. Relevant federal law required the employee to prove as part of her wrongful termination claim that her union had breached its duty of fair representation when handling her grievance.1 During trial the employer twice moved for a directed verdict, arguing the employee failed to prove the union had breached its duty of fair representation. The trial court denied the motions. The jury returned a special verdict finding that the union had breached its duty of fair representation and that the employer had wrongfully terminated the employee, and awarded $479,111 as compensation for the wrongful termination. The employer moved for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV), again arguing the employee failed to prove the union had breached its duty of fair representation. The employer alternatively moved for a new trial or remittitur, arguing the damage award was inaccurate. The trial court denied the motions.

The employer appeals the trial court's denials of its motions for a directed verdict, JNOV, and a new trial or remittitur. Because the trial court did not commit legal error or abuse its discretion in denying the motions, we affirm the trial court's decisions and the entry of judgment against the employer.

II. FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS

Deborah Chang–Craft worked as a customer service agent for Alaska Airlines, Inc. under a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) between Alaska Airlines and the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (Union). Chang–Craft's wrongful termination claim against Alaska Airlines centers on events occurring December 14–15, 2003, at the Alaska Airlines cargo facility where she worked.

Chang–Craft claimed that on the evening of December 14, coworker William Cameron approached her saying, “I want to show you my new baby,” and proceeded to use her computer to show her a picture of a gun. Chang–Craft claimed she previously told Cameron several times she was not interested in guns, and this time she told him to leave her alone and not to bring guns to work. Chang–Craft claimed Cameron approached her again shortly thereafter and told her she displayed “the classic signs” of Obsessive–Compulsive Disorder (OCD).

Cameron claimed that after telling Chang–Craft about his new gun, she told him: “It's a good thing that I don't have [a gun]. If I did, I would probably use it.” Cameron claimed he later observed Chang–Craft appearing “agitated and upset” and out of concern for her health asked if she had been diagnosed with OCD. Cameron claimed that in response Chang–Craft went on a diatribe about her job and coworkers.

The next day, December 15, Cameron met with Miranda Bowey, an Alaska Airlines employee services manager, detailing his version of the previous day's events. Union shop steward 2 Cheryl Eniero was in attendance at Bowey's request, and Eniero listened to Cameron's initial description of the events. When Eniero asked Cameron why he continued to follow Chang–Craft after she had asked him to leave her alone, Cameron asked Eniero to leave the meeting; she did. After the meeting Bowey advised Eniero that she was going to call Chang–Craft to talk to management later that day. Eniero went to Chang–Craft to let her know about the meeting, that the meeting was about Cameron, and that Eniero would be available as her Union representative at the meeting. It is unclear whether Eniero told Chang–Craft about the statements she heard Cameron give Bowey, but her testimony at trial indicates she did not. At some point Eniero learned that Bowey intended to suspend Chang–Craft's employment, but did not tell Chang–Craft.

According to Chang–Craft, that evening supervisor Mike Stanley told her we need to see you upstairs” but assured her that a shop steward would be present at the meeting. But when Chang–Craft went upstairs, Bowey “call[ed] out to [Chang–Craft] and, without a shop steward present, told Chang–Craft she was suspended, she must hand over her badge, Bowey and Stanley would escort her from the building, and if she did not leave quietly they would call the police. Chang–Craft felt “frantic” and “frightened” after Bowey told her she was suspended. Eniero was working in a copy room and was unaware that Bowey and Stanley actually called Chang–Craft to the meeting until Chang–Craft, upset and crying, came into the room to tell Eniero that Chang–Craft was being sent home. Eniero gave Chang–Craft a “brief synopsis” of Cameron's statements to Bowey and told Chang–Craft to “just go ahead and go home and we'll deal with ... it,” and Chang–Craft left the room. Eniero did not see Chang–Craft again that day.

Bowey and Stanley followed Chang–Craft as she collected her things. Bowey insisted on taking Chang–Craft's badge, and Bowey yelled that she was going to call the police. Chang–Craft retrieved her personal belongings from her locker and exited the building. Bowey came out after Chang–Craft, telling her to come back into the building; a police officer was already standing by Chang–Craft's car and more police cars were coming.

In his deposition presented at trial, Stanley testified that after Chang–Craft collected her belongings and was leaving the building she said she was never setting foot inside this ‘F-ing’ place again.” Chang–Craft countered that her words were taken out of context, and in actuality she meant she was not going back into the building that night. Chang–Craft claimed she refused to talk with Bowey because she felt she lacked assistance from a union representative. One of Chang–Craft's coworkers called Chang–Craft's husband, who came to the parking lot. Bowey and Stanley walked away, and the police allowed Chang–Craft to drive her car out of the parking lot.

Chang–Craft claimed she was told not to return to work until further notice. But on December 22 Alaska Airlines sent Chang–Craft a letter stating that her December 15 statement that she was “never coming back,” combined with emptying her personal belongings from her locker and failing to respond to telephone calls or requests to participate in the investigation, constituted a resignation, which the company accepted. After receiving the letter, Chang–Craft submitted a “Grievance, Suspension, and Discharge Appeal” to the Union, alleging that Alaska Airlines failed to conduct an impartial investigation of the incident and wrongfully terminated her.

In January 2004 three Union shop stewards represented Chang–Craft at a step-one grievance hearing with Alaska Airlines.3 Chang–Craft did not attend the meeting because the chief shop steward advised her not to attend. At the hearing the shop stewards argued that Chang–Craft's December 15 statement was not intended as a resignation and was taken out of context. Alaska Airlines denied the grievance.

Jerri Lochner, the Union shop steward who originally filed Chang–Craft's grievance, testified that she disagreed with the Union's decision not to have Chang–Craft attend the step-one hearing. Lochner testified that in her opinion “grievant[s] should always be [at the step-one hearing] to present their side” and because Chang–Craft was not, she was not represented fairly. But Lochner also testified that in her opinion Alaska Airlines had not investigated the incident and its representatives “came in there not really wanting to resolve this” but only “to hear what we had to say.” Lochner testified on cross-examination that neither Alaska Airlines nor the Union cooperated as required by the CBA.

Lochner helped compile and send the grievance documentation to the Union's General Chair, Don Welch, for a step-two grievance hearing.4 At the beginning of February 2004 Welch sent a letter to Alaska Airlines requesting “further handling” of Chang–Craft's grievance in accordance with the CBA. Alaska Airlines responded by holding a step-two hearing, but at the end of March 2004 again denied the grievance.

Robert Hartnett, the Alaska Airlines labor services manager who denied Chang–Craft's grievance after the step-two hearing, testified during Alaska Airlines's case that although he was involved from the beginning, he began handling Chang–Craft's grievance on behalf of Alaska Airlines for the second step of the process. Hartnett explained that during a step-two hearing Alaska Airlines becomes aware of all the details surrounding a grievance as the Union and the employer debate whether the grievance should be granted. Hartnett testified that Welch was a “worthy opponent” and that he and Welch talked about Chang–Craft's grievance “on a number of occasions.” Hartnett testified that Welch vigorously argued the case for Chang–Craft at the step-two hearing. But on cross-examination Hartnett conceded that no documents in his grievance-hearing file supported Alaska Airlines's position that Chang–Craft had resigned, and further conceded that the Union had not provided him with any documentation to the contrary. Hartnett testified that “background” information was not “pertinent” to his decision whether she resigned or was terminated, that he had not been aware of the specifics of the incident between Chang–Craft and Cameron, that the Union did not give him any documents to review, and that he had no notes of what actually occurred at the step-two hearing.

In early April 2004 Welch appealed to the System Board of Adjustment for an arbitration “hearing and decision” regarding...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT