Dragomier v. Local 1112 Int'l Union United Auto. Aerospace & Agric. Implement Workers of Am.

• Decision Date: 31 October 2014
• Docket Number: Case No. 4:11cv862.
• Parties: Mark DRAGOMIER, et al., Plaintiffs, v. LOCAL 1112 INTERNATIONAL UNION UNITED AUTOMOBILE AEROSPACE AND AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Ohio

64 F.Supp.3d 1033

Mark DRAGOMIER, et al., Plaintiffs

v.LOCAL 1112 INTERNATIONAL UNION UNITED AUTOMOBILE AEROSPACE AND AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA, et al., Defendants.

Case No. 4:11cv862.

United States District Court, N.D. Ohio, Eastern Division.

Signed Oct. 31, 2014.

Kenneth D. Myers, Cleveland, OH, for Plaintiffs.

Charles W. Oldfield, Dennis Haines, Green Haines Sgambati, Youngstown, OH, Joyce Goldstein, Richard L. Stoper, Goldstein Gragel, Corey D. Clay, Johanna Fabrizio Parker, Stanley Weiner, Jones Day, Cleveland, OH, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OF OPINION AND ORDER [Resolving ECF Nos. 74; 76; 77; 78; 98]

BENITA Y. PEARSON, District Judge.

Pending before the Court are a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment filed by Plaintiffs Mark Dragomier, Buffy Bell, Joseph Booth, Cheryl Brenner, Michael Bury, Robert Carr, Dan Clark, Edward Davis, Walter Dombrowski, Jr., Rodney Fowler,¹ Juliann Golembowski, Sean Harrison, Christina Haynes, Shanna Hodge–Cargill, Neema Books, Lynette Huston, Michael Javornicky, Deborah Keirsey, Amy Lapushansky, Amy Lattimer, Darlene Lee–Howie, Deanna Long, Tiffany Lowery, Franko Mancini, Denise Perry, Sonya Scott, Patrick Vrontos, and Mary K. Wood (ECF No. 74), Motions for Summary Judgment filed by Defendant Local 1112 International Union United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (ECF No. 76), Defendant International Union United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (ECF No. 77), and Defendant General Motors, LLC (ECF No. 78), and Plaintiffs' Motion to Substitute Party (ECF No. 98). The Court has been advised, having reviewed the record, including the parties' briefs and the applicable law. For the reasons provided below, the Court hereby grants Defendants' Motions for Summary Judgment, denies Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, and denies as moot Plaintiffs' Motion to Substitute Party.

I. Factual Background

A. The Parties

Plaintiffs are a group of 28 employees of General Motors, LLC (GM) who work in various departments in GM's Lordstown Complex East Assembly Plant in Lordstown, Ohio. ECF No. 69 ¶ 4. The Local 1112 International Union United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (“Local 1112”) and International Union United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (“International UAW”) (collectively, “Unions”) are labor organizations and the bargaining representatives of GM employees working at the Lordstown Plant, including Plaintiffs. ECF No. 69 ¶ 5. Plaintiffs, Local 1112, International UAW, and GM were all subject to the terms and conditions of the collective bargaining agreements between General Motors Corporation and the United Auto Workers, dated September 18, 2003 (the “2003 CBA”) and September 26, 2007 (the “2007 CBA”). ECF Nos. 75–1 ; 75–2. The 2003 CBA provided the exclusive obligations of the parties prior to October 15, 2007; the 2007 CBA thereafter. ECF No. 78–1 at 10.

B. Negotiating History

GM was financially struggling in the lead up to the 2007 CBA negotiations, and was contemplating outsourcing certain “non-core” jobs as a cost-cutting measure.² ECF No. 79–35 at 16–17. Instead, the parties reached an agreement instituting a Two–Tier Wage Structure that provided for a lower, entry level wage to be paid to newly hired Entry Level employees. ECF No. 79–35 at 16–17. This allowed GM to reduce its operating costs while protecting Union jobs from being outsourced as GM had initially contemplated. ECF No. 79–35 at 17. GM and International UAW (the National Parties) memorialized the Two–Tier Wage Structure in the Memorandum of Understanding—UAW–GM Entry Level Wage & Benefit Agreement (“Entry Level MOU”), which became effective as part of the 2007 CBA on October 15, 2007. ECF No. 77–1 at 11.

The Unions received push-back from its membership about the Two–Tier Wage Structure. ECF No. 79–34 at 22–23. The more-senior members of the Union became concerned that they would not be able to transition to the preferred non-core jobs after working years in core jobs if Entry Level employees would be hired to fill non- core vacancies going forward. ECF No. 79–34 at 23. The National Parties continued to discuss the implementation of the Entry Level MOU in response to these concerns, and subsequently agreed to two additional documents: the Core/Non Core and Entry Level Job Assignment Clarification (“March 2008 Clarification”) and the Core/Non–Core Agreement (“March 2008 Agreement”)—the effect of which is subject to dispute in the instant matter.

C. Plaintiffs' Employment

On October 16, 2006, GM hired a number of temporary employees, including Plaintiffs, for a limited period of time. ECF No. 75 ¶ 32. As temporary employees, Plaintiffs had no guarantee of continued employment, nor a right to be re-employed if terminated. ECF No 75 ¶¶ 26, 28. By April 30, 2007, all Plaintiffs had been terminated from temporary employment at the Lordstown plant. ECF No. 75 ¶ 33. In November 2007, GM rehired Plaintiffs as temporary employees. ECF No. 69 ¶ 11.

In June 2008, GM offered Plaintiffs the opportunity to become regular, Entry Level employees at Lordstown. ECF No. 75 ¶ 42. This entitled Plaintiffs to benefits they previously never enjoyed as temporary employees, including medical, dental, prescription and vision insurance; paid vacation and sick leave; and the ability to accrue seniority. ECF Nos. 79–9 at 25–26; 79–34 at 35. Plaintiffs all signed the Response to Job Offer Forms in June 2008 when presented with the option to do so. ECF No. 75 ¶ 43. Plaintiffs' wages decreased from the wages they previously earned as temporary employees; however, they maintained the same position along the wage progression that they had achieved as temporary employees. ECF No. 78–1 at 28–29.

D. Plaintiffs' Meetings With Union Officials Regarding Entry Level Wages

At the time GM offered Plaintiffs positions as Entry Level employees, the Unions anticipated that they would return to their traditional wages after GM had hired enough new Entry Level employees for a planned third shift. Pursuant to the Entry Level MOU, as modified by the March 2008 Clarification and Agreement, Plaintiffs would be “bumped up” again to traditional wages after GM had hired a certain number of Entry Level employees. ECF No. 79–30 at 153. GM's continuing financial struggles led to the elimination of the third shift, which meant that Plaintiffs were not “bumped up” to traditional wages. ECF No. 79–35 at 40.

This led to dissatisfaction among the Plaintiffs, who then sought an explanation from the Unions. Between July and December 2008, Local 1112 Shop Chairman Ben Strickland held three separate meetings with various Plaintiffs about their status as Entry Level employees. ECF No. 75 ¶ 48. Several Plaintiffs also met with Strickland one-on-one. ECF No. 75 ¶¶ 132, 197, 227. Around the same time, Strickland communicated with officials of the International Union regarding Plaintiffs' situation. ECF No. 75 ¶ 49. Strickland testified that his conversations with International UAW officials had confirmed that the CBA had been properly applied to Plaintiffs and their wages. ECF No. 79–30 at 178. Nonetheless, Strickland pleaded with GM officials to return Plaintiffs' wages to the traditional rate. ECF No. 79–30 at 160. When this too failed, Strickland informed the Plaintiffs that he did not plan to file a grievance on their behalf while at the same time encouraging Plaintiffs to appeal his decision. ECF No. 79–30 at 255–56.

E. The Internal Appeals Process

The UAW Constitution provides for a three-level appeal process when a member believes that Union officials wrongfully declined to file a requested grievance. ECF No. 22–8 at 87. The grievant first appeals to the “membership or delegate body immediately responsible for the official, officer, action, or decision under challenge.” ECF No. 22–8 at 87. If the grievant's request was denied. the grievant would then appeal to the International Executive Board (“IEB”) for review. ECF No. 22–8 at 87. The final appeal level is the Public Review Board (“PRB”), an independent board of labor law experts. ECF No. 22–8 at 87. In the instant matter, Dragomier appealed Strickland's decision not to file a grievance on behalf of all Plaintiffs. ECF No. 47 at 15–16. At each step of the appeals process, the adjudicative body agreed with Strickland that the situation did not warrant filing a grievance. ECF No. 78–1 at 19–20. Thereafter, the pending litigation ensued.

II. Procedural Background

Plaintiffs filed a Complaint in this instant Court on April 30, 2011. ECF No. 1. The Court instructed the parties to address whether Plaintiffs claims were barred by either the statute of limitations or by the failure to exhaust administrative remedies (collectively, the threshold legal issues). ECF No. 47 at 4. Defendants moved for summary judgment on the threshold legal issues. ECF Nos. 20; 21; 22. Plaintiffs opposed summary judgment (ECF No. 40); Defendants replied. ECF Nos. 42; 43; 44. The Court issued a Memorandum of Opinion and Order on December 29, 2012, denying Defendants' motions for summary judgment. ECF No. 47.

On October 14, 2013, Plaintiffs moved to amend their Complaint. ECF No. 59. Plaintiffs amended their complaint to clarify “why certain actions or inactions constitute violations” and to advance new theories of liability. ECF No. 59 at 4. All Defendants opposed this Motion (ECF Nos. 60; 61; 62); Plaintiffs replied. ECF No. 64. The Court granted Plaintiffs' Motion, finding that the amendments “arise out of the same ‘conduct, transaction, or occurrence’ as the original claims.” ECF No. 67 at 3 (quoting Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 15(c)(1)(B) ).

Plaintiffs assert two claims in their Amended Complaint: (1) a hybrid § 301 action brought pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 185 against Defendant GM for breach of the CBA and against Local 1112 and International UAW for breach of the duty of fair representation; and (2) a stand-alone duty...