Kaiser v. Local No. 83
| Decision Date | 30 June 1978 |
| Docket Number | No. 75-3531,75-3531 |
| Citation | 577 F.2d 642 |
| Parties | 99 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2011, 84 Lab.Cas. P 10,711 Arthur KAISER, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LOCAL NO. 83, affiliate of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, an unincorporated association, and United-Metro, Inc., Defendants-Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Gerald W. Alston, Phoenix, Ariz., for plaintiff-appellant.
Joe W. Contreras, of Ward & Contreras, Ltd., Phoenix, Ariz., for defendants-appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona.
Before CHAMBERS and HUG, Circuit Judges, and FERGUSON, * District Judge.
The issue on appeal is whether the employer is an indispensable party in an action against a labor union for breach of its duty to fairly represent a union member in processing a grievance against the employer. We hold that it is not.
Plaintiff filed an action in the Superior Court, Maricopa County, Arizona against the defendant union alleging:
1. On November 28, 1972, he was a member in good standing of the union.
2. That on that date while working for United-Metro, Inc., he stopped his truck and then became involved in a fight with two pedestrians, one of whom subsequently died.
3. Criminal charges were filed against him and his employer discharged him in violation of the collective bargaining agreement between his employer and the union.
4. He was acquitted of the criminal charges but his employer did not reinstate him.
5. He repeatedly requested that his union file grievance proceedings against the former employer.
6. The union refused to do so and thereby breached its duty of fair representation pursuant to 29 U.S.C. §§ 185, 159(a).
The union removed the action to the United States District Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b) and filed a motion to dismiss claiming that the employer, United-Metro, Inc., was an indispensable party pursuant to Rule 19 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and that without joinder of the employer as a defendant the action must be dismissed.
The district court granted the union's motion to dismiss with leave to amend. The plaintiff then filed an amended complaint including the employer as a defendant, alleging that it had wrongfully discharged him in violation of the terms of the collective bargaining agreement between the employer and the union. The allegations against the union were not changed.
The employer in due course filed a motion for summary judgment on the basis that its discharge of the plaintiff had never been challenged under the grievance procedures of the collective bargaining agreement and that its discharge of plaintiff was justified. The plaintiff did not contest the motion and summary judgment was granted in favor of the employer. The union then filed a motion for summary judgment contending that since the court had determined in the judgment in favor of the employer that plaintiff's discharge was not wrongful and did not constitute a breach of the collective bargaining agreement, the union could not commit any breach of fair representation by not processing a grievance with respect to plaintiff's discharge. That motion was granted, judgment was entered against plaintiff and this appeal followed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
The district court erred when it determined (1) that the employer is an indispensable party in a fair representation action against his union and (2) that if an action does not lie against the employer then no action can lie against the union.
Rule 19 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure states that a party is indispensable if in its absence complete relief cannot be accorded among those already parties, or disposition of the action without its participation may impede or impair its ability to protect its interests or subject it to multiple or inconsistent adjudication. Neither an employer nor a union is an indispensable party in an action against the other by an employee-union member when the action against the employer is based on a violation of the terms of the collective bargaining agreement and the action against the union is based on the statutory duty of fair representation.
In his amended complaint which the district court forced the plaintiff to file or suffer dismissal based upon Rule 19, plaintiff's cause of action against his former employer was contractual. He alleged that the employer discharged him in violation of the provisions of the collective bargaining agreement between the union and his employer which was in effect at the time of his discharge. In such a cause of action, the union is not an indispensable party since the sole wrongdoer is the employer. The employer may allege as a possible defense that the collective bargaining agreement was void or invalid or unenforceable. In that event, the employer may be required to join the union as a party under Rule 19. However, those matters were not presented in this case.
On the other hand, the cause of action against the union pleaded by the plaintiff is a statutory right based upon the union's duty to fairly represent him. A breach of that statutory duty of fair representation occurs only when a union's conduct toward a member of the collective bargaining unit is arbitrary, discriminatory or in bad faith....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United Food & Commercial Workers Union, Locals 197, 373, 428, 588, 775, 839, 870, 1119, 1179 and 1532 by United Food & Commercial Workers Intern. Union, AFL-CIO v. Alpha Beta Co.
... ... Beta and ten locals of the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, AFL-CIO (Local Unions), entered into a series of collective bargaining agreements covering the existing stores ... Warrior & Gulf Navigation Co., 363 U.S. 574, 582-83, 80 S.Ct. 1347, 1352-53, 4 L.Ed.2d 1409 (1960) (emphasis added; footnote omitted); e.g., Brannon ... v. Local Union 759, 461 U.S. 757, 103 S.Ct. 2177, 2183-86, 76 L.Ed.2d 298 (1983); Kaiser Steel Corp. v. Mullins, U.S. 72, 77, 83-84, 102 S.Ct. 851, 855, 859-60, 70 L.Ed.2d 833 (1982) ... ...
-
Graham v. Quincy Food Service Employees Ass'n
... ... Local 2977, State Council 93, Am. Fed'n of State, County, & Mun. Employees, 25 Mass.App.Ct. 439, 441, ... and the action against the union is based on the statutory duty of fair representation." Kaiser v. Local No. 83, Int'l Bhd. of Teamsters, 577 F.2d 642, 644 (9th Cir.1978). See Leahy, supra 399 ... ...
-
Lobo v. Celebrity Cruises, Inc.
... ... Often, because of public policy or for other reasons, the local sovereign may exert only limited jurisdiction and sometimes none at all. Cunard S.S. Co. v ... Sociedad Nacional de Marineros de Honduras, 372 U.S. 10, 83 S.Ct. 671, 9 L.Ed.2d 547 (1963), the Supreme Court evaluated the application of the NLRA to ... denied, 401 U.S. 1009, 91 S.Ct. 1253, 28 L.Ed.2d 545 (1971) ... Kaiser v. Local No. 83, 577 F.2d 642, 644-645 (9th Cir.1978) (emphasis added); Abrams v. Carrier Corp., ... ...
-
Beckington v. Am. Airlines, Inc.
... ... Cent. Airlines, Inc. , 372 U.S. 682, 685, 83 S.Ct. 956, 10 L.Ed.2d 67 (1963) ; see 45 U.S.C. 181 188. The RLA endeavors "to promote ... Postal Workers Union, Local 6885 v. Am. Postal Workers Union , 665 F.2d 1096, 1109 (D.C. Cir. 1981), and may in fact "prefer ... , but the "origin of the liability" for each claim is "separate and distinct," Kaiser v. Local No. 83 , 577 F.2d 642, 645 (9th Cir. 1978) ; see Czosek v. OMara , 397 U.S. 25, ... ...