Gregg v. Chauffeurs, Teamsters and Helpers Union Local 150
| Decision Date | 23 February 1983 |
| Docket Number | No. 82-4250,82-4250 |
| Citation | 699 F.2d 1015 |
| Parties | 112 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2924, 96 Lab.Cas. P 14,158 John Richard GREGG, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. CHAUFFEURS, TEAMSTERS AND HELPERS UNION LOCAL 150, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Neil Bodine, Carol Livingston, Sacramento, Cal., for defendant-appellant.
Douglas Lewis, Roseville, Cal., for plaintiffs-appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California.
Before WRIGHT and CHOY, Circuit Judges, and REED, District Judge. *
Appellees, four members of a local union, claimed that it breached its duty of fair representation when it withdrew from arbitration grievances against the employer seeking severance pay on behalf of the appellees. The district court agreed, finding that the union acted arbitrarily, and awarded damages against it in the amount that each appellee would have received as severance pay. In this appeal the union contends that it acted rationally and breached no duty to the appellees.
In December 1973 American Bakeries Company (American) and Union Local 150 were parties to a collective bargaining agreement which covered American's employees, including the appellees. Under section 25 of the agreement, employees terminated "due to the closing of a plant or In December 1973 American cut back its distribution operations in the Sacramento area, within the jurisdiction of the union. It closed three of its four depots and reduced the number of drivers at the fourth, the Iris depot.
depot and the discontinuance of its operations" were entitled to severance pay. However, if a layoff resulted from the operation of seniority rules, no severance pay was due.
Laid off members of the union demanded section 25 severance pay. American refused the demands, because it had not totally discontinued operations within the union's jurisdiction. It contended that the employees from the four depots, who were on a single seniority list, were laid off by operation of seniority rules, and had no right to severance pay.
The union filed grievances on behalf of all terminated employees, except one whose name it overlooked. On the morning of the arbitration hearing, it withdrew the grievances of employees who had been assigned to the Iris depot. Not until five months later, when the arbitrator awarded severance pay to the other employees, did the Iris employees learn of the withdrawal.
Appellees are four employees whose grievances were withdrawn by the union. Two had supervisory duties at depots which were closed, as well as at Iris. The third was replaced by a more senior employee from a closed depot. The fourth would have been laid off due to the cutback at Iris even if he competed for seniority against only other Iris employees.
A union is not required to take every grievance of its members to arbitration. Vaca v. Sipes, 386 U.S. 171, 191, 87 S.Ct. 903, 917, 17 L.Ed.2d 842 (1967). It breaches its duty of fair representation of its members only if its conduct toward them is "arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad faith." Id. at 190, 87 S.Ct. at 916.
A union's conduct is arbitrary if "without rational basis." Robesky v. Qantas Empire Airways Ltd., 573 F.2d 1082, 1089 (9th Cir.1978). The union's reasons may be "simply too insubstantial" to justify its conduct. Id.
This union contends that its decision to withdraw appellees' grievances was a rational, tactical decision, based on its attorney's opinion that pursuing appellees' grievances weakened the other members' position before the arbitrator. Even if the decision was irrational, it contends, its reliance on the advice of a competent attorney...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Greer v. Pac. Gas & Elec. Co.
...based on facts arguably similar to those in the case before us:Viewed in this light, Gregg [v. Chauffeurs, Teamsters and Helpers Union Local 150 , 699 F.2d 1015 (9th Cir. 1983) ] and Tenorio control the resolution of the instant controversy. Indeed, Dorcas' decision not to interview or call......
-
Peterson v. Kennedy
...We have said that a union's conduct is "arbitrary" if it is "without rational basis," see Gregg v. Chauffeurs, Teamsters and Helpers Union Local 150, 699 F.2d 1015, 1016 (9th Cir.1983), or is "egregious, unfair and unrelated to legitimate union interests." See Johnson v. United States Posta......
-
Galindo v. Stoody Co.
...at 1465 (citing Robesky, 573 F.2d at 1090); and conduct without a "rational basis," see, e.g., Gregg v. Chauffuers, Teamsters and Helpers Union Local 150, 699 F.2d 1015, 1016 (9th Cir.1983).10 Appellants also contend Peon's failure to notify Stoody could not be a breach of its duty of fair ......
-
Karahalios v. Defense Language Institute
...unit is arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad faith." Id. at 190, 87 S.Ct. at 916; see also Gregg v. Chauffeurs, Teamsters & Helpers Union Local 150, 699 F.2d 1015, 1016 (9th Cir.1983); Robesky v. Quantas Empire Airways Limited, 573 F.2d 1082, 1086 (9th Cir.1978). Arbitrary conduct is suffic......