Imbrunnone v. Chrysler Corporation, Civ. A. No. 36112.
Decision Date | 26 April 1971 |
Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 36112. |
Citation | 336 F. Supp. 1223 |
Parties | Mike IMBRUNNONE, Plaintiff, v. CHRYSLER CORPORATION et al., Defendants. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Michigan |
Max D. McCullough, Mt. Clemens, Mich., for plaintiff.
Walter B. Maher, Chrysler Corporation-Legal Dept., Detroit, Mich., for defendant Chrysler.
Stephen I. Schlossberg, John A. Fillion, Jordan Rossen, Stanley Lubin, Detroit, Mich., for defendant Union.
RULING ON DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS
This is a civil action based upon a grievance by plaintiff against defendant Chrysler for the alleged malicious conduct of defendant Charles Smith in discharging plaintiff, and brought against the union for alleged bad faith and fraudulent conduct in refusing to exhaust all of the grievance procedures set forth in the union contract and available to plaintiff. The action was initiated in Macomb County Circuit Court, State of Michigan, and was removed to this Court by defendants as being an action arising under the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C.A. § 159(a).
Plaintiff claims that this indicates that efforts were made in his behalf at the International level and that the union constitution makes no provision for an appeal from a decision by someone at the International level.
It is incumbent upon plaintiff to plead and prove that he attempted to process his individual grievance according to the provisions contained in the arbitration agreement between the union and the corporation, and that he has exhausted such provisions before he is entitled to bring a civil action. Vaca v. Sipes, 386 U.S. 171, 87 S.Ct. 903, 17 L. Ed.2d 842 (1967). In the absence of such exhaustion, plaintiff is prohibited from proceeding in civil courts on the same dispute. The only exception to this requirement is where the employee can prove that the union was guilty of bad faith and fraud and breach of its duty of fair representation in its handling of his grievances. Vaca v. Sipes, supra. Plaintiff, however, must show that the failure of the union to process his grievance was the result of fraud, misrepresentation, bad faith, dishonesty or gross mistake or inaction, in order to maintain such an action. Balowski v. International U., United A. A. & A. Imp. Workers, 372 F.2d 829 (6th Cir. 1967); Williams v. Kroger Co., 369 F.2d 85 (6th Cir. 1966). Whether a representative of the union has acted fairly is to be determined by the facts of each case. Pekar v. Local U. No. 181 of Int. U. of United Brewery, etc., Workers, 311 F.2d 628 (6th Cir. 1962), cert. denied, 373 U.S. 912, 83 S.Ct. 1303, 10 L.Ed.2d 414; Trotter v. Amalgamated Association of Street Electric Railway and Motor Coach Employees, 309 F.2d 584 (6th Cir. 1962), cert. denied, 372 U.S. 943, 83 S.Ct. 936, 9 L.Ed.2d 968. It is incumbent upon the plaintiff to allege those facts which would tend to show bad faith or...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Orphan v. Furnco Construction Corporation, 71-1455.
...to exhaust intra-union appeal procedures are Harrington v. Chrysler Corp., 303 F.Supp. 495 (E.D.Mich.1969), and Imbrunnone v. Chrysler Corp., 336 F.Supp. 1223 (E.D.Mich.1971). Notably in Anderson v. Ford Motor Co., 319 F.Supp. 134 (E. D.Mich.1970), Harrington was cited in support of grantin......
-
Brookins v. Chrysler Corporation, Dodge Main Division, Civ. A. No. 4-70388.
...Cecil v. UAW, 71 LC ¶ 13,754 (W.D.Ky.1973); Dill v. Wood Shovel & Tool Co., 68 LC ¶ 12,685 (S.D.Ohio 1972); Imbrunnone v. Chrysler Corp., 336 F.Supp. 1223 (E. D.Mich.1971); Anderson v. Ford Motor Co., 319 F.Supp. 134 (E.D.Mich.1970); Harrington v. Chrysler Corp., 303 F. Supp. 495 (E.D.Mich.......
-
Louisville and Nashville Railroad Company v. Dunn
... ... Civ. No. 6432 ... United States District Court, M. D ... or Towns, and used exclusively for public or corporation purposes, and such as may be held and used for purposes ... ...
-
Ruzicka v. General Motors Corporation, Civ. A. No. 36598.
...court is without authority to entertain the plaintiff's action." Supra at 497. (Emphasis added.) See also Imbrunnone v. Chrysler Corporation, 336 F.Supp. 1223 (E.D.Mich. 1971). (Plaintiff's action barred because he failed to exhaust his grievance procedure and the union's action was not so ......