Griffin v. Air Line Pilots Ass'n, Intern.

• Decision Date: 10 August 1994
• Docket Number: No. 93-3336,93-3336
• Citation: 32 F.3d 1079
• Parties: 146 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 3092, 128 Lab.Cas. P 11,153 Kevin GRIFFIN, Dennis Holmbeck, Roger Myers, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. AIR LINE PILOTS ASSOCIATION, INTERNATIONAL, Defendant-Appellee.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit

Page 1079

32 F.3d 1079

146 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 3092, 128 Lab.Cas. P 11,153

Kevin GRIFFIN, Dennis Holmbeck, Roger Myers, et al Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. AIR LINE PILOTS ASSOCIATION, INTERNATIONAL, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 93-3336.

United States Court of Appeals Seventh Circuit.

Argued April 6, 1994.

Decided Aug. 10, 1994.

Randall L. Mitchell (argued), James L. Komie, Schuyler, Roche & Zwirner, Chicago, IL, for plaintiffs-appellants.

Irving M. Friedman, Michael B. Erp, Katz, Friedman, Schur & Eagle, Chicago, IL, Gary Green, Elizabeth Ginsburg (argued), Air Line Pilots Ass'n, Washington, DC, for defendant-appellee.

Before COFFEY, EASTERBROOK, and MANION, Circuit Judges.

MANION, Circuit Judge.

Simmons Air Lines, Inc. demoted the plaintiffs from captains to first officers. The Air Line Pilots Association did not intervene to try to save their jobs. In fact, the union actually suggested the demotion as an acceptable way for the company to deal with a shortage of first officers. The demoted pilots sued the union, claiming that it violated its duty of fair representation, and tortiously interfered with their employment expectations. The district court granted summary judgment for the union, and we affirm.

I. Facts

Simmons, a Chicago-based regional airline, employs two categories of pilots: captains and first officers. Each plane has a crew consisting of one captain and one first officer. The captain is in charge of the crew and is better paid than the first officer. Simmons hires pilots as first officers; as vacancies for captain positions become available, first officers bid for the jobs. The bidder with the most seniority receives the captaincy. All Simmons pilots are represented in collective bargaining by the Air Line Pilots Association (the union), which is certified under the Railway Labor Act, 45 U.S.C. Secs. 151-188.

The plaintiffs joined Simmons in 1989 as first officers. Later that year, several vacancies developed in captain positions. For various reasons, first officers senior to the plaintiffs decided not to bid on those positions. The plaintiffs bid; even though they had been with the company for a relatively short time, as the only bidders they got the jobs. They became the most junior captains, and as a consequence were assigned the least desirable hours and flights. They were designated "Reserve Captains" which means they had no set schedule and had to fill in on flights as needed. They willingly suffered this inconvenience, however, in expectation that eventually, as they increased in seniority, it would pay off.

In February 1992, Simmons notified the union that it had a temporary staffing imbalance: too many captains and not enough first officers. Simmons wanted the union to agree to a 90-day window where the most junior captains--including the plaintiffs--would be assigned into first officer positions, with captain's pay. The union agreed to this temporary displacement. At the time, the union and Simmons were in the process of hammering out the final details of a new collective bargaining agreement, which was to go into effect the next September. Simmons sought a contractual vehicle to deal with temporary staffing imbalances in the future. It got the union to agree to a provision in the new collective bargaining agreement which explicitly allowed the company to temporarily shift junior captains into first officer positions.

The 90-day window for temporary displacement of junior captains into first officer positions expired in June 1992. Simmons wanted to extend the window until September, when the new collective bargaining agreement was to go into effect. But the union was having trouble with the rank and file. Some first officers resented that the junior captains, who had gained their positions by default, were flying as first officers but receiving captain's pay. Some also had come to regret their decision not to apply for the captain positions back in 1989, when the plaintiffs had successfully bid. The opportunities for captaincy had dried up since then, and many first officers wished they had applied when the jobs were available.

The union, responding to these sentiments, did not immediately jump at the company's offer to extend the 90-day window. Instead, the union sent the company a list of acceptable alternatives to deal with the temporary staffing problem, including: 1) temporarily staffing the first officer positions with pilots from other regional carriers related to Simmons 2) hiring new pilots through normal channels; 3) temporarily displacing junior pilots as proposed, but giving extra pay to all first officers senior to the pilots; and 4) permanently displacing the junior captains into first officer positions. In response, the company withdrew its offer to extend the 90-day window for temporary displacement, and permanently demoted the junior captains into first officer positions, as the union had proposed in its fourth alternative.

Needless to say, the junior captains were upset. They felt sold out by the union. They thought they were singled out for bad treatment because a disproportionate number of them were not union members. Whereas about 85-90% of all Simmons pilots were union members, only 75% of the junior pilots belonged to the union at the time of their displacement (plaintiff Roger Myers resigned soon after in protest). Not only did the union fail to intervene to save their captaincies, but it appeared that the union actually encouraged the company to permanently displace them. From the plaintiffs' perspective, the union behaved in this manner so that their desirable jobs could be taken by more loyal members of the rank and file.

The plaintiffs filed suit, ¹ making two claims. First, they alleged that the union's actions and inactions violated its duty of fair representation. Second, they alleged that the union tortiously interfered with their expectation of continued employment. The district court granted summary judgment for the union, determining that it did not breach its duty of fair representation, and that the state law tortious interference claim was preempted by the Railway Labor Act. The plaintiffs have appealed.

II. Analysis

We review de novo the district court's grant of summary judgment. Hamilton v. Komatsu Dresser Indus., 964 F.2d 600, 603 (7th Cir.1992). Summary judgment is authorized if "the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c); Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 2511, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). In determining whether summary judgment is appropriate, we must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, in this case the plaintiffs. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 255, 106 S.Ct. at 2513.

The undisputed facts taken in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs show the union doing two things which the junior pilots found objectionable. First, the union failed to accept Simmons' offer in June 1992 to extend the window for temporary displacement a couple of months until the new collective bargaining agreement which authorized the shift was ratified. Had the union accepted this offer, presumably the plaintiffs would not be in court; they would have simply continued as junior captains, albeit temporarily displaced into first officer positions, and there would not have been a dispute. But the union did not accept the offer. Instead, it wrote a letter to Simmons, which at least suggested that the company might permanently displace the junior captains into first officer positions. That suggestion was the second thing the plaintiffs found objectionable. Our task is to determine whether the union's failure to accept Simmons' June 1992 offer, and its subsequent letter suggesting permanent displacement as a possible alternative, violated the union's duty of fair representation. Also, we must determine whether the plaintiffs possibly can succeed on their state law tortious interference claim.

A. Duty of Fair Representation

A union violates its duty of fair representation to the employees it represents only if its actions are "arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad faith...." Vaca v. Sipes, 386 U.S. 171, 190, 87 S.Ct. 903, 916, 17 L.Ed.2d 842 (1967). This is a tripartite standard; a court should look to each element when determining whether a union violated its duty. Air Line Pilots Ass'n, Int'l v. O'Neill, 499 U.S. 65, 77, 111 S.Ct. 1127, 1135, 113 L.Ed.2d 51 (1991). Therefore, "[t]he three separate levels of inquiry under this standard are as follows: (1) did the union act arbitrarily; (2) did the union act discriminatorily; or (3) did the union act in bad faith." Ooley v. Schwitzer Div., Household Mfg. Inc., 961 F.2d 1293, 1302 (7th Cir.1992). In order to successfully defend against a motion for summary judgment on a duty of fair representation claim, the plaintiff must point the court to record evidence supporting any one or all of these elements. Rule 56(e), Fed.R.Civ.P.; see also Anderson, 477 U.S. at 247, 106 S.Ct. at 2509.

Our first inquiry, then, is whether the pilots introduced substantial evidence that the union acted arbitrarily in not accepting Simmons' June proposal, and in suggesting permanent displacement as an alternative. The Supreme Court instructs that the arbitrary prong of the fair representation test is very deferential. O'Neill, 499 U.S. at 76-79, 111 S.Ct. at 1135-36. It is not the court's role to second-guess tactical decisions made by employees' duly appointed bargaining representative. We only begin to inquire into such decisions when there is evidence that they are "so far outside a wide range of reasonableness, that the actions rise to the level of irrational and arbitrary conduct." Ooley, 961 F.2d at 1302, quoting O'Neill, 499 U.S. at 78, 111 S.Ct. at 1136 (...