Kirchhof v. Haw. Ass'n of Union Agents
| Decision Date | 20 May 2016 |
| Docket Number | CIV. NO. 15-00175 JMS-KSC |
| Citation | 187 F.Supp.3d 1181 |
| Parties | Marc-Andre Kirchhof, Plaintiff, v. Hawaii Association of Union Agents, Hawaii Government Employees' Association, Local 152, American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, AFL/CIO (Hgea/afscme Local 152); Michael Yuen, in his official capacity as Hawaii Association of Union Agents President and Representative; Michele Mitra, in her official capacity as Maui Island Division Chief for HGEA/AFSCME Local 152; Wilbert Holck, in his official capacity as Deputy Executive Director for HGEA/AFSCME Local 152, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Hawaii |
Jason S. Woo, Jason Woo, Attorney at Law, LLLC, Honolulu, HI, for Plaintiff.
Phillip A. Li, Li & Tsukazaki, Jonathan E. Spiker, Koshiba Price Gruebner & Mau, Honolulu, HI, for Defendants.
ORDER (1) DENYING IN PART AND GRANTING IN PART DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, DOC. NOS. 43 and 47; and (2) GRANTING HAUA'S AND YUEN'S MOTION FOR JOINDER, DOC. NO. 50
Plaintiff Marc-Andre Kirchhof ("Plaintiff") filed this action asserting that (1) his former employer, Hawaii Government Employees' Association, Local 152, American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO ("HGEA"), breached its collective bargaining agreement ("CBA") in violation of § 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act ("LMRA") by wrongfully terminating him; (2) his union, Hawaii Association of Union Agents ("HAUA"), breached its duty of fair representation in violation of the National Labor Relations Act ("NLRA") by declining to arbitrate his grievance; and (3) HGEA and HAUA's (collectively, "Defendants")1 actions amount to intentional infliction of emotional distress ("IIED"). Plaintiff seeks reinstatement, compensatory damages, and punitive damages.
Currently before the court are (1) Defendants' Motions for Summary Judgment, Doc. Nos. 43 and 47, and (2) HAUA's and Yuen's Motion for Joinder, Doc. No. 50. Based on the following, the court DENIES in part and GRANTS in part Defendants' Summary Judgment Motions. The court GRANTS HAUA's and Yuen's Motion for Joinder.
Plaintiff began working for HGEA's Maui Division Office as a full-time Union Agent on February 2, 2004. Doc. No. 44, HGEA's Concise Statement of Facts ("CSF") ¶¶ 1-2.2 HGEA's Maui Division is a small office with only a handful of employees. See Doc. No. 68-25, Pl.'s Ex. 23 (). As a Union Agent, Plaintiff's work was supervised by HGEA's Maui Division Chief. Doc. No. 44, HGEA's CSF ¶ 6. According to Plaintiff, he "met expectations or [was] outstanding in every performance or job review during his 10 years with HGEA." Doc. No. 70, Pl.'s CSF ¶ 3.
Beginning June 17, 2014—several months after Plaintiff's ten-year anniversary with HGEA—HGEA promoted Michele Mitra ("Mitra") from her position as Union Agent to Maui Division Chief. Doc. No. 44, HGEA's CSF ¶ 7; see also Doc. No. 44-4, Declaration of HGEA Union Agent Tehani Nunez ("Nunez Decl.") ¶ 3 (). Though not entirely clear, it appears that after Mitra's promotion, there were only two full-time Union Agents at HGEA's Maui Division Office: Tehani Nunez and Plaintiff. See, e.g. , Doc. No. 44-4, Nunez Decl. ¶¶ 2-4 (). See also Doc. No. 68-25, Pl.'s Ex. 23 ().
On July 2, 2014, Mitra held a meeting with Nunez and Plaintiff. See Doc. No. 44-4, Nunez Decl. ¶ 2; Doc. No. 68-1, Declaration of Marc-Andre Kirchhof ("Pl.'s Decl.") ¶ 3. The parties dispute what happened at this meeting. According to HGEA, Mitra informed Nunez and Plaintiff that, because of her promotion, she "would no longer be able to take on new cases" and that new cases would be assigned to Plaintiff and Nunez. Doc. No. 44-4, Nunez Decl. ¶ 2. Nunez says that Plaintiff "did not take on new cases" and that "new cases were assigned to HGEA Union Agents on Oahu and [Nunez]." Id. ¶ 4.
By contrast, Plaintiff says that "[t]here was no discussion of work assignments at this meeting." Doc. No. 68-1, Pl.'s Decl. ¶ 3. Instead, Plaintiff states that the July 2, 2014 meeting involved Nunez describing "an issue with a particularly uncooperative member" and that Mitra "immediately inquired whether the member was 'white.' " Id. Plaintiff says that "[a]fter the meeting [he] complained to [Mitra] about her racist comments" and said "that it made [him] uncomfortable." Id. Plaintiff further claims that he "always volunteered" to accept work, Doc. No. 44-14, HGEA's Ex. 10 ("Pl.'s Dep.") at 69:14-15, and that he "never refused to take on work, cases, assignments, or any other tasks when asked to do so by a superior." Doc. No. 68-1, Pl.'s Decl. ¶ 22.
On August 2, 2014—a Saturday—various HGEA employees, including Plaintiff, agreed to participate in a political canvassing event.3 Plaintiff emailed Mitra at 11:15 a.m., and stated: "FYI: I am not able to come to the 8/2 Ka'ala canvassing this morning. "4 Doc. No. 44-15, HGEA's Ex. 11 (emphasis added). That same day, Nunez "observed [Plaintiff] playing soccer" at H.A. Baldwin Park,5Doc. No 44-4, Nunez Decl. ¶ 5, and it appears that Nunez subsequently reported Plaintiff's soccer activities to HGEA. Doc. No. 48-1, Declaration of Michael Yuen ("Yuen Decl.") ¶ 57. HGEA never contacted Plaintiff about missing the August 2, 2014 event.6 Doc. No. 68, Pl.'s CSF ¶ 13.
Beginning the next Monday (August 4, 2014) through Thursday (August 7, 2014), Plaintiff was out sick. Doc. No. 44-11, HGEA's Ex. 7, Timesheet. On August 8, 2015 (Friday), all HGEA offices were closed unexpectedly due to "severe weather conditions" caused by a hurricane. Doc. No. 44-17, HGEA's Ex. 13, Employee Bulletin.
On August 9, 2014—another Saturday—various HGEA employees, including Plaintiff, agreed to participate in a phone banking event for a political race.7 Doc. No. 44-14, Pl.'s Dep. at 88. Plaintiff did not participate,8 id. , and that same day, Nunez "observed [Plaintiff] standing on the sidelines of the soccer field," Doc. No. 44-4, Nunez Decl. ¶ 6, and apparently reported Plaintiff's soccer activities to HGEA. See Doc. No. 48-1, Yuen Decl. ¶ 57. HGEA never contacted Plaintiff about missing the August 9, 2014 event. Doc. No. 68-1, Pl.'s Decl. ¶ 13.
From August 11, 2014 through September 4, 2014, Plaintiff missed work while on sick leave.9 Doc. No. 44, HGEA's CSF ¶ 20. During this period, Plaintiff submitted weekly doctor's notes to HGEA. Id. ¶ 21. Plaintiff says he was available by phone and email. Doc. No. 68-1, Pl.'s Decl. ¶ 8. HGEA claims, however, that "[w]hile on sick leave, Plaintiff's location and whereabouts were unknown."10 Doc. No. 68-17, Pl.'s Ex. 15 at 12.
On the morning of September 3, 2014, Plaintiff emailed HGEA explaining that he was "still out sick due to illness." Doc. No. 68-3, Pl.'s Ex. 1. The doctor's note attached to Plaintiff's email stated that Plaintiff should "continue off work until 9/10/14 due to occupational stress." Id.
HGEA terminated Plaintiff by letter dated September 4, 2014. Doc. No. 44-22, HGEA's Ex. 18, Termination Letter.
HGEA's termination letter did not provide a reason for Plaintiff's termination, id. , and HGEA admits that "Plaintiff was not contacted or warned to discuss his employment status" prior to his termination. Doc. No. 68-17, Pl.'s Ex. 15 at 12.
On September 8, 2014, Plaintiff received HGEA's termination letter. Doc. No. 68-1, Pl.'s Decl. ¶ 14. Plaintiff was "confused, surprised and shocked," id. ¶ 15, and "couldn't believe it and had no idea why" he was terminated. Id. Plaintiff then emailed Wilbert Holck ("Holck"), HGEA's Executive Director, and requested "in writing the specific reasons of the termination action." Doc. No. 44-24, HGEA's Ex. 20. According to HGEA, Holck sent Plaintiff a responsive letter on September 9, 2014 stating: "Your employment with HGEA was terminated effective September 4, 2014 due to your behaviors that displayed a disregard for your position as a Union Agent IV and significantly impacted the HGEA Maui Division Office." Doc. No. 44-25, HGEA's Ex. 21. Plaintiff denies ever receiving this letter. Doc. No. 68-1, Pl.'s Decl. ¶ 17.
Throughout his employment with HGEA, Plaintiff was a member of HAUA. Doc. No. 44, HGEA's CSF ¶ 3. "HAUA is a labor union that serves as the exclusive bargaining agent for Union Agents employed by HGEA." Id. ¶ 4. The relationship between HGEA and HAUA is governed by a CBA, id. ¶ 5, and "any conflict between the provisions of [the CBA] and any directive of [HGEA]" must be resolved in favor of the CBA. See Doc. No. 44-8, CBA at 1 ("Article 2—Conflict").
Under the CBA, HGEA cannot discipline or discharge HAUA members "without proper cause." See id. at 5 ("Article 12—Discipline and Discharge"). HAUA members also have certain rights with regard to HAUA, such as the right to HAUA representation for grievances that arise with HGEA that are covered by the CBA. See id. at 2 ("Article 4—Union Representation"); see also id. at 21-23 ("Article 43—Grievance Procedure"). Toward that end, the CBA outlines a formal three-step grievance procedure: In Steps 1 and 2, the HAUA member is entitled to meet with an HAUA Representative and HGEA's "island division chief or [her] designee" to discuss the grievance. Id. at 21-22. "If the grievance is not resolved at Step 2 and [HAUA] desires to proceed with arbitration, it shall serve written notice on [HGEA] .... of its desire to arbitrate within ten (10) working days after receipt of [HGEA's] decision at Step 2." Id. at 22.
On September 8, 2014, Plaintiff emailed HAUA's President and Representative, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Tuomela v. Waldorf-Astoria Grand Wailea Hotel
..."A hybrid § 301/fair representation action 'comprises two causes of action' that sink or swim together." Kirchhof v.Haw. Ass'n of Union Agents, 187 F. Supp. 3d 1181, 1197 (D. Haw. 2016) (quoting Bliesner, 464 F.3d at 913). Leave to amend to add a § 301 claim would be futile because "[a] hyb......