Massey v. United Transp. Union

• Decision Date: 03 October 1994
• Docket Number: Civ. A. No. 493-272.
• Parties: Lawrence MASSEY, Plaintiff, v. UNITED TRANSPORTATION UNION and Central Of Georgia Railroad Company, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of Georgia

868 F. Supp. 1385

Lawrence MASSEY, Plaintiff, v. UNITED TRANSPORTATION UNION and Central Of Georgia Railroad Company, Defendant.

Civ. A. No. 493-272.

United States District Court, S.D. Georgia, Savannah Division.

October 3, 1994.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Randall Arthur Schmidt, Savannah, GA, for Lawrence Massey.

Edward S. Sell, III, Sell & Melton, Macon, GA, James Loughridge Pannell, Patricia Tanzer Paul, Oliver, Maner & Gray, Savannah, GA, Kevin C. Brodar, Associate General Counsel, Cleveland, OH, for United Transp. Union.

Carey P. DeDeyn, Melanie D. Wilson, Sutherland, Asbill & Brennan, Atlanta, GA, William Elbert Dillard, III, Miller, Simpson & Tatum, Savannah, GA, for Central of Georgia R. Co.

ORDER

EDENFIELD, Chief Judge.

Plaintiff Lawrence Massey was discharged for drug use by his employer, Central of Georgia Railroad ("CGR"). Prior to final action of a Public Law Board affirming his dismissal, Massey attended drug rehabilitation programs and made use of grievance procedures agreed upon by the United Transportation Union ("UTU") and CGR. Massey filed this suit after the Board denied his appeal, claiming breach of duty of fair representation by UTU and violations of a collective bargaining agreement and the Railway Labor Act ("RLA"), 45 U.S.C. § 151 et seq. (1990), by UTU and CGR (collectively "Defendants"). Massey here appeals an order of the magistrate judge denying Massey's motion to amend his complaint to include a claim under 45 U.S.C. § 153 (1990) against CGR. UTU and CGR both move the Court for summary judgment, and UTU further moves for dismissal under Fed.R.Civ. Proc. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). For reasons discussed below, Massey's motion to amend is DENIED, UTU's motion to dismiss is consequently DENIED, and Defendants' motions for summary judgment are GRANTED.

I. Massey's Motion to Amend the Complaint

This Court may reconsider the decision of a magistrate judge, but will reverse it only "where it has been shown that the magistrate's order is clearly erroneous or contrary to law." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) (1990).

By Order of July 22, 1994, Magistrate Judge G.R. Smith denied Massey's motion to amend his complaint to include a claim based on inadequacies in the procedures followed by a Public Law Board pursuant to 45 U.S.C. § 153(q) (1990). Magistrate Smith's reasoning was sound, and the Court only supplements it here. After reviewing the record and the parties' briefs, the Court is satisfied that the necessary facts underlying Massey's proposed amendment were available before the deadline the magistrate imposed for amending the pleadings, much less the deadline set for filing motions. As CGR notes in its memorandum in support of the magistrate's order, Massey's own filings show that he was indeed aware of relevant facts months before the date on which he sought to file an amendment. The Court need not condone Massey's undue delay, National Service Industries, Inc. v. Vafla Corp., 694 F.2d 246, 249 (11th Cir.1982), Kreuzfeld, A.G. v. Carnehammar, 138 F.R.D. 594, 609 (S.D.Fla.1991), especially long after the close of discovery. See, e.g., Bryson v. Waycross, 888 F.2d 1562, 1567 (11th Cir.1989), reh'g denied, en banc, 894 F.2d 414 (1990).

Massey's new factual allegations do present a cause of action discrete from his prior claims: Where he previously made what the Supreme Court terms a "hybrid" claim of breach of duty of fair representation and breach of contract against the Defendants, the proposed amendment focuses on procedural faults in the Board's deliberations. As discussed further below, final decisions of an arbitration board regarding discharge are generally not reviewable in federal courts, but board procedures may be attacked on three prescribed grounds: (1) failure of the board to comply with requirements of the Railway Labor Act; (2) failure of the board's order to conform, or confine itself, to matters within the scope of the board's jurisdiction; or (3) fraud or corruption by a member of the board making the order. 45 U.S.C. § 153(q). See Diamond v. Terminal Ry. Alabama State Docks, 421 F.2d 228 (5th Cir.1970). The three circumstances permitting judicial review of arbitration awards are extremely narrowly construed by reviewing courts. Henry v. Delta Air Lines, 759 F.2d 870, 871 (11th Cir.1985). Having carefully reviewed Massey's allegations, it is clear that they are extremely unlikely to support a claim under § 153(q). See Pltf's Memorandum in Support of Notice of Appeal, at 3-5; Union P.R. Co. v. Sheehan, 439 U.S. 89, 99 S.Ct. 399, 58 L.Ed.2d 354 (1978), reh'g denied, 439 U.S. 1135, 99 S.Ct. 1060, 59 L.Ed.2d 98 (1979). The amendment would be a futile exercise; Massey's best hopes lie with his original hybrid claim.

The Court is aware that leave to amend should be "freely given when justice so requires." Fed.R.Civ.Pro. 15(a). Pleading is no longer a "game of skill in which one misstep by counsel may be decisive to the outcome" of a case. Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 48, 78 S.Ct. 99, 103, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957). Here, Massey's proposed amendment is not supported by factual allegations sufficient to make out a claim under the specific provisions of 45 U.S.C. § 153(q). Massey's counsel was familiar with our local rules, cognizant of relevant deadlines, granted an extension of time, and without a good reason for the delay. When these observations are viewed in light of the minimal prospects for victory on the new claim, the Court is content that affirmance of the magistrate's order will not unduly tilt the scales of justice.

II. UTU'S Motion to Dismiss

UTU's motion to dismiss is predicated on the Court granting Massey's motion to amend. UTU argues that if the Court allows the amendment, the union is not a proper party to the new claim. Since the Court rejects Massey's amendment, UTU's motion is denied as moot.

III. Motions for Summary Judgment

The court is left with Defendants' summary judgment motions. Rule 56(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that summary judgment is appropriate when "there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and ... the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." All evidence must be considered "in the light most favorable to the non-moving party," with all reasonable doubts resolved in favor of that party. Earley v. Champion Int'l Corp., 907 F.2d 1077, 1080 (11th Cir.1990). If the evidence favoring the nonmoving party is merely colorable, or is not significantly probative, summary judgment is appropriate. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249-50, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 2510-11, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986) (subsequent history omitted). A mere "scintilla" of evidence will not suffice to support the nonmovant's position. Walker v. Darby, 911 F.2d 1573, 1577 (11th Cir.1990).

In their motions both Defendants argue that this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction and that the record does not support Massey's claim of inadequate representation. CGR further argues that Massey's claims are barred by the applicable statute of limitations.

A. The Statute of Limitations

CGR argues that Massey's hybrid claim is governed by a judicially created six months statute of limitations, and the claim was brought more than six months after the "final action" of the Public Law Board. CGR's first point is correct; its second is not. After DelCostello v. Int'l Brotherhood of Teamsters, 462 U.S. 151, 169-72, 103 S.Ct. 2281, 2293-94, 76 L.Ed.2d 476 (1983), remanded & aff'd, 762 F.2d 1219 (4th Cir.1985), hybrid claims are clearly governed by a six month limitation period borrowed from § 10(b) of the National Labor Relations Act. The limitation period begins to run when the employee knew or should have known of the union's or employer's final action in the grievance process, whichever occurs later. Proudfoot v. Seafarer's Int'l Union, 779 F.2d 1558, 1559 (11th Cir.1986), later proceeding, 1988 A.M.C. 1816 (11th Cir.1986). Final action is defined as the point where the grievance procedure is exhausted or otherwise breaks down to the employee's disadvantage. Id.

In the instant case, the Public Law Board convened on September 24, 1992, its decision was issued on April 30, 1993, and this action was filed on October 26, 1993. CGR maintains that the "final action" of the Board occurred on September 24, 1992, when it convened, and so this suit was filed long after the six month deadline. We hold, however, that the limitation period properly began to run on April 30, 1993, when Massey was notified that his appeal was denied. See Hester v. Int'l Union of Operating Engineers, 818 F.2d 1537, 1544-48 (11th Cir.1987), reaff'd in relevant part after clarification and vacation, 878 F.2d 1309 (1989), cert. denied, 494 U.S. 1079, 110 S.Ct. 1808, 108 L.Ed.2d 939 (1990); Howard v. Lockheed Georgia Co., 742 F.2d 612, 614 (11th Cir. 1984). Before that time, he had not fully "exhausted" his arbitration remedies and could not have known his status with CGR or whether a lawsuit would be necessary to further pursue his claims. See Hester, 818 F.2d at 1544-48. Massey's notification of the Board's award is the point at which he became aware that the grievance procedure had "broken down" to his disadvantage. Counting from that date, this lawsuit was filed just within the six month period. CGR's claim on this ground is denied.

B. Subject Matter Jurisdiction

When reviewing arbitration decisions made under the RLA, courts must first decide whether the dispute at issue is "minor" or "major." Minor disputes are those which concern the application or interpretation of an existing collective bargaining agreement; no party is attempting to change the actual agreement or create a new one. A major dispute concerns unilateral changes in rates of pay, working conditions, or other significant aspects of an existing agreement, where the mechanism for change is not provided for in the agreement itself. See Hendley v. Central of G.R. Co., 609 F.2d 1146, 1150 (5th Cir.19...