Linton v. United Parcel Service

• Decision Date: 24 May 1991
• Docket Number: No. 90-1915,90-1915
• Parties: 138 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2920 Unpublished Disposition NOTICE: Sixth Circuit Rule 24(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Sixth Circuit. Leonard K. LINTON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, and International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Local 243, Defendants-Appellees.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit

Page 1008

933 F.2d 1008

138 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2920

Unpublished Disposition

NOTICE: Sixth Circuit Rule 24(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Sixth Circuit.

Leonard K. LINTON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, and International Brotherhood of

Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of

America, Local 243, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 90-1915.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

May 24, 1991.

Before KENNEDY and BOYCE F. MARTIN, Jr., Circuit Judges, and SPIEGEL, District Judge. ^*

PER CURIAM:

The plaintiff, Leonard K. Linton, appeals the District Court's decision granting defendants, United Parcel Service (UPS) and International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Local 243 (the union) summary judgment in this suit brought pursuant to section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. Sec. 185(a). This case is a hybrid section 301 suit, alleging improper discharge and breach of the duty of fair representation. The plaintiff claims that the District Court erred in concluding that UPS did not discharge the plaintiff in violation of the collective bargaining agreement and in holding that because he could not proceed with the claim against UPS, the claim against the union also failed. For the reasons discussed below, we REVERSE and REMAND.

The plaintiff was first hired by UPS in 1979 as a part-time loader-unloader. He was employed by UPS in that capacity until September 1988, when he applied for the position of "next day special air driver." In order to apply for the two positions he filled out employment applications which included the question: "Have you ever been convicted of a crime?" Linton's response to that question on both applications was "no." The 1979 application included the following statement:

In signing this application for employment, I understand that misrepresentation or omission of facts is cause for cancellation of this application or separation from the company's service if I am employed. I agree that the company shall not be liable in any respect if my employment is terminated because of the falsity of statements, answers or omissions made by me on this application.

The 1988 application included a statement virtually identical to that above.

In the course of processing Linton's 1988 application, UPS ran a check on his criminal history, and discovered that he had been convicted in May 1976 of "Loitering Where Marijuana is Kept," in violation of a Dearborn, Michigan ordinance.

After confronting the plaintiff with this information, and having been dissatisfied with the plaintiff's response, UPS terminated his employment in October 1988. In a letter to plaintiff dated October 17, 1988, UPS stated that "the employment applications submitted to United Parcel Service on August 7, 1979 and on September 20, 1988 were falsified." The letter cited the relevant clause from the application, and informed Linton that his employment with UPS was terminated.

The plaintiff claims that he was not aware that he had provided any false information because he did not think that he had ever been convicted of a crime. When he was 17, he and a friend were stopped by police, and his friend was found to have marijuana in his possession. The two were taken into custody, and Linton pled guilty to the loitering offense and paid a fifty dollar fine.

Leon Cooper, vice president and business agent of Local 243 processed the plaintiff's grievance. Cooper, plaintiff and a company representative attended a meeting, at which the UPS representative refused to reinstate Linton. A local level hearing was then held to seek formal adjustment of the grievance. UPS accepted Cooper's proposal that UPS allow Linton to resign, rather than be discharged. Linton, however, withdrew his preliminary acceptance, and refused to resign. Plaintiff then requested that the union proceed to the next step in the grievance procedure, a hearing before the state-level union-management committee. Cooper informed Linton that the decision reached at the local level hearing was final and binding and that the union considered the matter closed.

...