Manley v. Great Lakes Steel Corp.

• Citation: 572 F. Supp. 566
• Decision Date: 28 September 1983
• Docket Number: Civ. No. 82-73041.
• Parties: Leo MANLEY, Plaintiff, v. GREAT LAKES STEEL CORP. and United Steelworkers, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of Michigan

572 F. Supp. 566

Leo MANLEY, Plaintiff, v. GREAT LAKES STEEL CORP. and United Steelworkers, Defendants.

Civ. No. 82-73041.

United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, S.D.

September 28, 1983.

Eugene A. Goreta, Ecorse, Mich., for plaintiff.

D. James Barton, Grosse Ile, Mich., for Great Lakes Steel.

Kim Arthur Siegfried, Allen Park, Mich., for United Steelworkers.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

RALPH M. FREEMAN, District Judge.

This action is an employee suit against the employer and a union, alleging the employer's breach of a collective bargaining agreement and the union's breach of its duty of fair representation with respect to the ensuing grievance proceedings. 29 U.S.C. § 185; Vaca v. Sipes, 386 U.S. 171, 87 S.Ct. 903, 17 L.Ed.2d 842 (1967). Plaintiff filed his complaint on July 23, 1982 in Wayne County Circuit Court seeking damages resulting from his discharge from employment on October 8, 1981 and which became final on November 10, 1981. The case was removed to this Court on August 13, 1982. The complaint alleges that his employer, Great Lakes Steel Corp., breached the collective bargaining agreement when it discharged plaintiff. It also alleges that the union, United Steelworkers, failed to fairly represent plaintiff in the grievance proceedings held subsequent to his discharge and pursuant to the collective bargaining agreement.

On January 31, 1983, the company filed a motion for summary judgment claiming that the action was time-barred by the six month limitations period set forth in section 10(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 160(b), as applied to these actions in Michigan by the Sixth Circuit in Badon v. General Motors Corp., 679 F.2d 93 (6th Cir.1982). The union filed a motion urging the granting of summary judgment in its favor on the same grounds on February 1, 1983. Plaintiff responded to the motions on February 11, 1983. Argument was scheduled for and heard on March 28, 1983.

On February 24, 1983, the Sixth Circuit issued its decision in Pitts v. Frito-Lay, Inc., 700 F.2d 330 (6th Cir.1983) holding that "the six-month statute of limitations adopted in Badon for suits of this nature should not be given retroactive effect." Id. at 334. However, the Sixth Circuit had held, one month earlier, that United Parcel Service, Inc. v. Mitchell, 451 U.S. 56, 101 S.Ct. 1559, 67 L.Ed.2d 732 (1981), the case on which the Badon court relied, applied retroactively. Lawson v. Truck Drivers, Chauffeurs & Helpers, Local Union 100, 698 F.2d 250 (6th Cir.1983) (decided January 17, 1983). Both Pitts and Lawson applied the principles set forth in Chevron Oil Co. v. Hudson, 404 U.S. 97, 92 S.Ct. 349, 30 L.Ed.2d 296 (1971) in determining retroactivity. At the hearing on the summary judgment motions now before the Court, the Court took the motions under advisement and requested each party to submit supplemental briefs on the effect of Lawson and Pitts on the case at hand. The supplemental briefs were filed in April and May of 1983.

Complicating matters further in this case is the very recent decision of the Supreme Court in DelCostello v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, ___ U.S. ___, 103 S.Ct. 2281, 76 L.Ed.2d 476 (1983). In DelCostello, the Supreme Court held that the provisions of § 10(b) of the National Labor Relations Act establishing a six month limitations period for the filing of unfair labor practice charges with the National Labor Relations Board should be borrowed and applied to actions alleging the employer's breach of the collective bargaining agreement and the union's breach of its duty of fair representation.¹ In an earlier decision, United Parcel Service, Inc. v. Mitchell, 451 U.S. 56, 101 S.Ct. 1559, 67 L.Ed.2d 732 (1981), the Supreme Court held that the appropriate limitations period for an employee's claim against the employer was to be found by looking to the state statute of limitations for actions seeking to vacate arbitration awards rather than by looking to the state statute of limitations for actions alleging breach of contract. The Court in DelCostello was quick to note the limited review of this issue afforded them by the questions posed in Mitchell:

First, our holding was limited to the employee's claim against the employer; we did not address what state statute should govern the claim against the union. Second, we expressly limited our consideration to a choice between two state statutes of limitations; we did not address the contention that we should instead borrow a federal statute of limitations, namely § 10(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, 28 U.S.C. § 160(b). These cases present these two issues. We conclude that § 10(b) should be the applicable statute of limitations governing the suit, both against the employer and against the union.

103 S.Ct. at 2285 (footnotes omitted). Thus, as a result of DelCostello, actions such as the one brought by plaintiff in the case at hand must be brought within six months of the accrual of the cause of action or be time barred.

In deciding whether plaintiff's claims in the case at hand are time barred, the Court must first determine the impact of DelCostello on Badon and Pitts. The Court is called on to address two questions in evaluating the impact of DelCostello on Badon and Pitts. First, does DelCostello alter the statute of limitations applicable to actions brought pursuant to § 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 185, that arise in Michigan? Second, is DelCostello to be applied retroactively?

Badon was the Sixth Circuit's first review of the Supreme Court's decision in Mitchell with respect to causes of action arising in Michigan. In Badon, the Sixth Circuit surveyed Michigan law in compliance with Mitchell's directive to borrow the state statute of limitations for vacation of arbitration awards. When the Sixth Circuit discovered that Michigan does not have a limitations period for the vacating of labor arbitration awards, it followed the lead of Justice Stewart's concurrence in Mitchell, 451 U.S. at 65, 101 S.Ct. at 1565, urging the adoption of the six month limitations period in § 10(b) for the filing of unfair labor practice charges. Thus, in Badon, the Sixth Circuit held that actions in Michigan alleging an employer's breach of a collective bargaining agreement and the union's breach of its duty of fair representation were to be governed by a six month limitations period borrowed from § 10(b).

The conclusion in DelCostello that a six month limitations period adopted from § 10(b) is applicable to § 301 actions is identical to the conclusion reached in Badon. Badon reached the conclusion that the six month limitations period found in § 10(b) was applicable after finding that there was no relevant authority in Michigan establishing a limitations period for actions seeking to vacate arbitration awards. DelCostello, on the other hand, reached the same conclusion after rejecting the Mitchell analogy to actions seeking to vacate arbitration awards. Therefore, the Court concludes that DelCostello does not alter the conclusion of the Sixth Circuit in Badon.

The question of the retroactive application of DelCostello was not addressed in that case. The Court did apply the six month limitations period to each of the two cases before it. Such application, however, is not a ruling on the appropriateness of retroactive application.² The general rule is that, in civil cases, a decision interpreting the law should be applied retroactively unless "it represents a `clean break' with the past and unless in addition it would be fundamentally unfair or otherwise burdensome to so apply it." Lawson, supra, 698 F.2d at 254 (citing Chevron Oil Co. v. Hudson, 404 U.S. 97, 106-07, 92 S.Ct. 349, 355, 30 L.Ed.2d 296 (1971); United States v. Johnson, 457 U.S. 537, 550 n. 12, 563, 102 S.Ct. 2579, 2587 n. 12, 2595 (1982)). Chevron Oil set forth the three factors to be considered when the retroactive application of a decision is challenged. 404 U.S. at 106-07, 92 S.Ct. at 355. This Court, however, need not apply the Chevron Oil test to DelCostello. Because the Sixth Circuit in Pitts concluded that the adoption of the six month limitations period from § 10(b) in Badon satisfied the Chevron Oil test for prospective application, and because the Supreme Court in DelCostello adopted the same six month limitations period from § 10(b), this Court concludes that it is compelled to find that DelCostello is not to be applied retroactively.³ In Pitts, the Sixth Circuit was aware that the Supreme Court had granted certiorari in two cases to consider the suitability of applying the limitations period in § 10(b) to § 301 actions.

The Supreme Court in Mitchell was simply "called upon to determine which state statute of limitations period should be borrowed and applied to an employee's action against his employer under § 301." United Parcel Service, Inc. v. Mitchell, supra, 451 U.S. at 57, 101 S.Ct. at 1561 (emphasis added). Accordingly, this Court concluded that Mitchell does not represent "the kind of `clean break' with past precedent contemplated in Chevron." Lawson, supra, at 254.

In Badon, however, this Circuit decided, notwithstanding the foregoing precedent directing utilization of a state limitations period, that in Michigan the courts must apply a federal statute of limitations to § 301 actions. Badon therefore is not a mere clarification of an established rule nor was it clearly foreshadowed by other decisions in this area of the law. Rather, Badon creates a new rule of law and represents a clean break with past precedent.

The Court would observe that the Supreme Court has recently granted certiorari in two cases to consider the suitability of applying § 10(b) to § 301 actions. DelCostello v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, 679 F.2d 879 (4th Cir.) cert. granted ___ U.S. ___, 103 S.Ct. 442, 74 L.Ed.2d 599 (1982); Flowers v. Local 2602, United Steelworkers of America, 671 F.2d 87, supra. This, of course, does not

...