Nanney v. Chrysler Corp., Civ. A. No. 83-725-WKS.

• Decision Date: 26 December 1984
• Docket Number: Civ. A. No. 83-725-WKS.
• Citation: 600 F. Supp. 1248
• Parties: Jimmie NANNEY, Plaintiff, v. CHRYSLER CORPORATION and Local 1183 of the United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW), Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Delaware

600 F. Supp. 1248

Jimmie NANNEY, Plaintiff, v. CHRYSLER CORPORATION and Local 1183 of the United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW), Defendants.

Civ. A. No. 83-725-WKS.

United States District Court, D. Delaware.

December 26, 1984.

Michael C. Heyden, Wilmington, Del., for plaintiff.

W. Laird Stabler, III, Potter, Anderson & Corroon, Wilmington, Del., William T. McLellan, Chrysler Corp., Detroit, Mich., for defendant Chrysler.

John Biggs, III, Biggs & Battaglia, Wilmington, Del.; Richard H. Markowitz, Andrew L. Markowitz, Markowitz & Richman, Philadelphia, Pa.; Jordan Rossen, General Counsel, Leonard R. Page, Associate General Counsel, International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace & Agricultural Implement Workers of America-UAW, Detroit, Mich., for defendant Local 1183.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

STAPLETON, Chief Judge:

This is a duty of fair representation and breach of contract action brought by plaintiff Jimmy Nanney against his union, Local 1183 of the United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (the "Union"), and his employer, Chrysler Corporation. At issue is the settlement by the Union and Chrysler of a grievance against Chrysler filed by the Union on plaintiff's behalf. Plaintiff claims that his Union breached its duty of fair representation by improperly settling the grievance, and that Chrysler violated its collective bargaining agreement with the Union by failing to provide plaintiff with certain vacation and holiday pay and other benefits pursuant to the settlement agreement. Plaintiff brought this action under the Labor Relations Management Act of 1947, 29 U.S.C. § 185.

Both the Union and Chrysler now move for summary judgment on the ground that plaintiff Nanney failed to exhaust the internal union remedies set forth in the union constitution. In addition, Chrysler brings this motion alleging that Nanney's claim is precluded by the applicable statute of limitations. The Union also argues that it did not, as a matter of law, breach its duty of fair representation by settling the plaintiff's grievance.

I will grant the motion of both defendants on the ground that plaintiff failed to exhaust his internal union remedies.

I

Plaintiff was first employed by Chrysler in March, 1969, and became a member of the Union shortly thereafter. Nanney worked for Chrysler as a tool-maker in its Newark, Delaware assembly plant.

On September 24, 1981, the plaintiff was indefinitely suspended by Chrysler for his alleged violation of Shop Rule I which prohibits "falsification of employment application or other corporation records or the use of falsified documents."

On October 5, 1981, plaintiff's suspension was changed by Chrysler into a discharge and his employment was terminated. On the same day, the Union filed a grievance on Nanney's behalf, protesting his discharge.

Thereafter, the Union pursued the plaintiff's grievance through step four of the grievance procedure as set forth in the Collective Bargaining Agreement (the "Agreement") between the Union and Chrysler. See Agreement § 27. At the Appeal Board stage of step four of the grievance procedure, a settlement was reached providing for plaintiff's reinstatement with full seniority and with back pay in the amount of $18,000.00 less normal deductions. In its written disposition of the plaintiff's grievance dated January 14, 1983, the Appeal Board stated:

In full settlement of this case J. Nanney will be offered reinstatement in accordance with his seniority provided he can meet normal requirements. Upon reinstatement, J. Nanney shall be paid eighteen-thousand ($18,000.00), less his normal deductions.¹

Accordingly, plaintiff returned to work in late January, 1983. Several weeks later, Nanney received a check from Chrysler in the amount of $12,004.00, representing $18,000.00 of backpay less payroll deductions. Thereafter, in May 1983, plaintiff received a check from Chrysler for the holiday and vacation pay that he had earned since returning to work in late January, 1983.

Nanney's holiday and vacation pay was calculated on the basis of the thirteen weeks he actually worked from his reinstatement in late January to May, 1983 in accordance with the graduated schedule outlined in section 106(b) of the Agreement. Nanney contends, however, that his holiday and vacation pay should have been calculated on the basis of the entire year he would have worked had he not been wrongfully discharged by Chrysler.

After receipt in May 1983 of his vacation and holiday paycheck, Nanney complained to his shop steward that he was entitled to the full amount of vacation and holiday pay as if he had been working during the 1982 period preceding his January 1983 reinstatement. The shop steward raised Nanney's complaint with a Chrysler labor relations representative, who informed the shop steward that Nanney received everything he was entitled to under the settlement of his grievance. The steward communicated Chrysler's position to Nanney. Plaintiff did not thereafter file an appeal with either the Local or International Union complaining of the disposition of his grievance with respect to the amount of vacation and holiday pay and other benefits he received.

In his statement of the facts, plaintiff particularly complains of the handling of his grievance during step three of the grievance procedure. See Agreement § 26. In accordance with step three, Nanney's grievance was transmitted to the President of the Local, who is obligated to take up the matter with the Plant Manager or his designated representative at an arranged meeting. The President herein at issue informed Nanney that if there was no settlement after the third step of the grievance procedure, the Union would proceed to what the President called "Instant Arbitration."²

Between his termination on October 5, 1981, and February 8, 1982, Nanney frequently contacted the President inquiring about the status of his grievance. The President assured plaintiff that his grievance was being properly processed. During the last week in January, 1982, in response to his inquiry, plaintiff was informed by the President that the meeting required by step three of the grievance process had taken place. Plaintiff requested a copy of the minutes of that meeting, but the President responded that he was too busy to provide them.

On February 8, 1982, plaintiff again inquired of the President about the status of his grievance. The President informed Nanney that the grievance had been transmitted to the Regional Representative of the Union, Mr. Ferrara. Mr. Ferrara told Nanney, however, that he had never received the grievance even though he had pressed the President for it on three previous occasions. When confronted with this, the President admitted to Nanney that he had never sent it to Ferrara. When Nanney reminded the President that he had promised "instant arbitration" in the event that the grievance was not resolved after step three, the President presented Nanney with a form to sign authorizing arbitration.

Plaintiff was subsequently advised by Mr. Ferrara in the summer of 1982 that his grievance would go to arbitration on August 15, 1982. That date was rescheduled on three different occasions. Finally in December 1982, Nanney was informed by Joan Patterson, a representative of the International Union, that the grievance had been settled. In early January, 1983, Nanney again spoke with Patterson and raised the issue of his vacation pay and other benefits arising during the period prior to his reinstatement. Patterson informed him that the settlement providing him with $18,000 backpay and seniority was final and urged him to accept it. She informed him that she would not take his request with respect to vacation pay back to Chrysler for further negotiations.

Notwithstanding this conversation, Nanney contends that Patterson led him to believe that the time he had been deprived of work would be counted as "time worked" for the purposes of the Union benefit package which included vacation, holiday and retirement benefits. Plaintiff further claims that he was led to believe that all references to his suspension and discharge would be expunged from his record.

Since I find that plaintiff failed to utilize his Union's internal appeals procedure without adequate explanation, and that summary judgment is therefore warranted, I need not decide whether there are genuine issues of material fact with respect to the additional grounds for summary judgment raised by defendants.

II

"Whenever a union member has been mistreated by his bargaining representative, he must ... avail himself of his intra-union remedies before turning to the courts for relief." Pawlak v. Int'l Bhd. of Teamsters, 444 F.Supp. 807, 810 (M.D.Pa. 1977), aff'd without opinion, 571 F.2d 572 (3d Cir.1978) (citations omitted). Moreover, if a union member fails to exhaust his intra-union remedies, he carries the burden of explaining his failure. See Brady v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 401 F.2d 87, 104 (3d Cir.1968), cert. denied, 393 U.S. 1048, 89 S.Ct. 684, 21 L.Ed.2d 691 (1969) ("The member must first exhaust the available internal union remedies, or show an adequate reason for failing to do so.")

Recently, the Supreme Court of the United States reaffirmed the policy underlying the exhaustion of internal remedies requirement, but only where the internal union appeals procedure can either grant the aggrieved employee full relief or reactivate his grievance. Clayton v. U.A.W., 451 U.S. 679, 696, 101 S.Ct. 2088, 2099, 68 L.Ed.2d 538 (1981). Clayton indicated that the exhaustion of internal union remedies is not an absolute requirement, and listed "at least three factors", the existence of which would allow a court to excuse an employee's failure to exhaust:

First, whether union officials are so hostile to the employee that he could not hope to obtain a fair hearing on his claim; second, whether the

...