Papalios v. Gen. Motors, LLC

• Decision Date: 04 December 2017
• Docket Number: CASE NO. 4:16-cv-2234
• Parties: GEORGE PAPALIOS, PLAINTIFF, v. GENERAL MOTORS, LLC, et al., DEFENDANTS.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Ohio

GEORGE PAPALIOS, PLAINTIFF, v. GENERAL MOTORS, LLC, et al., DEFENDANTS.

CASE NO. 4:16-cv-2234

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION

December 4, 2017

JUDGE SARA LIOI

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This case involves claims asserted under § 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act ("LMRA"), 29 U.S.C. § 185. Specifically, plaintiff George Papalios ("Papalios") challenges the seniority date he was assigned by defendant General Motors, LLC ("GM") upon his hire. Papalios alleges that GM breached a 2007 agreement addressing the hiring of employees from three companies, and that defendant Local No. 1714 ("Local 1714") of the United Automobile, Aerospace, Agricultural Implement Workers of America, Amalgamated Union ("UAW") breached a duty of fair representation in handling a grievance associated with his seniority date assignment under the agreement.

Before the Court are two motions for summary judgment: one filed by Local No. 1714 and a second motion filed by GM. (Doc. No. 32 ["Local 1714 MSJ"]; Doc. No. 34 ["GM MSJ"].) Papalios filed an omnibus response opposing both motions (Doc. No. 38 ["Papalios Opp'n"]), and each defendant filed a reply. (Doc. No. 41 ["Local 1714 Reply"]; Doc. No. 42 ["GM Reply"].) For the reasons that follows, the motions for summary judgment are granted, and this case is dismissed.

I. BACKGROUND

In October 2005, Delphi Corporation ("Delphi") filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy, and, as a result, was forced to close several of its plants. In re Delphi Corp., Bankr. No. 05-44481 (RDD), 2008 WL 3486615 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Aug. 11, 2008). As part of the reorganization, Delphi entered into an agreement with GM and the International Union of Electrical Workers ("IUE"). (Doc. No. 34-2 (IUE-Delphi-GM Memorandum of Understanding Delphi Restructuring ["MOU"]), beginning at 797.¹) Attachment G to the MOU, entitled "Special Employee Placement Opportunities" ("SEPO"), provided specific opportunities to employees of Delphi and two other companies—ACC and Guide—who were members of IUE to seek employment with GM at certain facilities. (MOU, Att. G, SEPO, beginning at 871.) Relevant to the present summary judgment motions, the SEPO provided:

Employees seeking employment opportunities shall be made in conjunction with their Delphi seniority (highest seniority first) provided the applicant is able and qualified to perform the available work. Individuals applying for this Special Employee Placement Opportunities will be selected from an integrated list of all applicants from ACC, Guide and Delphi after all [GM], Delphi, Guide, ACC and other individuals that have a contractual right to openings within [GM] have been afforded an opportunity to fill the available opening pursuant to the terms and conditions of the GM - UAW Employment Placement Provisions. These IUE-CWA Delphi applicants will be hired in a ratio that is on a one for one basis with a "New Hire" applicant.

(SEPO, § 2, at 871, emphasis added.) The SEPO also vested GM with sole discretion to develop and control the hiring process (subject only to restrictions not raised in this case):

GM will develop a process by which eligible Delphi employees can express their interest in being considered for employment opportunities with GM as openings that are designated as available for this opportunity arise. This process will be developed by GM . . . .

(Id., § 12, at 873.)

It is undisputed that GM developed and implemented a plan through which employees of Delphi, ACC, and Guide could express interest in employment with GM. (Doc. No. 34-2 (Affidavit of Joseph Wilson ["Wilson Aff."]) ¶ 7.) On or about January 12, 2008, and pursuant to the SEPO, GM's Lordstown plant issued a requisition indicating that it had 900 job openings to fill. (Id. ¶ 8.) Hiring at the Lordstown facility took place between June 12, 2008 and July 7, 2008.) (Id. ¶ 9.)

Papalios was one of the Delphi employees who sought employment at the Lordstown facility. (Doc. No. 1 (Complaint ["Compl."]) ¶ 5; Doc. No. 35-1 (Deposition of George Papalios ["Papalios Dep."]) at 14, 29.²) While employed with Delphi, Papalios was a member of Local 717 of the IUE ("Local 717"). Neither the IUE nor Local 717 is a party to this litigation. GM hired Papalios on June 30, 2008, and it is this June 30, 2008 date, as opposed to Papalios' Delphi seniority date, that presently controls his employment with GM. (Id. at 17.) Further, Papalios concedes that he understood when he was hired by GM that GM considered June 30, 2008 to be his seniority date.³ (Id.)

When he began his employment with GM, Papalios was represented by the UAW, Local 1112 ("Local 1112"). (Id. at 27.) Local 1112 and its international, UAW, are also not parties to this lawsuit. On November 17, 2008, Papalios filed a grievance with Local 1112. (Id. at 27, 86;Papalios Dep., Ex. L ["2008 Grievance"].) The record is sketchy as to the details of this initial charge, but, for purposes of summary judgment, the parties agree that Papalios used this grievance to challenge his GM seniority date. (Papalios Dep. at 86.) According to Papalios, the grievance was denied by GM, and he appealed to the Local 1112 membership. (Id. at 27-28.) Papalios claims that the union shop chairman for Local 1112 advised him that the matter was for the international to resolve, and that this individual assured him that Local 1112 would send his grievance to the UAW for its consideration. (Id. at 28.) Papalios never received a response from the UAW, and he personally took no further action on the grievance. (Id.)

Instead, in 2010, Papalios applied for a voluntary transfer to the Lordstown's stamping facility located on the west side of the plant. (Id. at 11, 28-29.) The transfer resulted in his union representation changing from Local 1112 to Local 1714. (Id. at 11-12, 28.) It is undisputed that Local 1714 is also associated with the UAW.

Once again, the record turns cloudy. Papalios claims that at some point after he became a member of Local 1714, he "asked Local 1714 officials about the status of his grievance (presumably the 2008 Grievance)," as "Local 1714 voluntarily assumed responsibility for pursuing Papalios' grievance." (Papalios Opp'n at 1096.) He maintains that he was assured that the grievance was being considered at the international level, but when he called some unidentified person at the UAW, he learned that the UAW was unaware of any such grievance. (Papalios Dep. at 37.) Papalios then filed an unfair labor practice ("ULP") charge with the National Labor Relations Board ("NLRB"). (Id.) According to Papalios, he agreed to withdraw the ULP when Local 1714 promised to help him file a new grievance. (Id. at 37, 54.)

On October 28, 2011, almost three and one half years after beginning his employment atGM, Papalios filed his second grievance, this time with Local 1714, based on his perception that GM should have hired him earlier in the 2008 hiring process. (Id. at 50; Papalios Dep., Ex. G ["2011 Grievance"].) Specifically, Papalios charged GM "with a violation of [the] SEPO agreement. [Employees] eligible for transfer from Delphi should have been placed in seniority order among themselves and brought into GM/UAW on a 'one for one' basis . . . ." (2011 Grievance, capitalization omitted.) He demanded that GM "fix" the seniority dates of all Delphi transfers. (Id.) The 2011 Grievance represented the second time Papalios attempted to grieve this very same issue, and he admits that he failed to personally pursue the 2008 Grievance through the internal union appeals process to the international level. (Papalios Dep. at 54.)

Local 1714 denied the 2011 Grievance, which Papalios appealed. In a letter dated November 6, 2014, Local 1714's Shop Committee denied Papalios' appeal. (Papalios Dep., Ex. C (Shop Committee Letter) at 939-40.) Papalios then presented his grievance to the Local 1714 membership, which also denied his appeal. (Papalios Dep., Ex. C (December 3, 2014 Letter from Papalios to Local 1714 Recording Secretary) at 938; Papalios Dep. Ex. C (February 10, 2015 Letter from Papalios to UAW President, Dennis Williams) at 935-36.) On December 17, 2015, Papalios received a letter from the office of the president of the UAW. (Papalios Dep., Ex. C (December 17, 2015 Letter from Office of UAW President ["Dec. 17, 2015 Appeal Letter"]), beginning at 932.) In this letter, the administrative assistant to the president advised Papalios that his appeal was denied. Putting aside the fact that the grievance was untimely, as it was filed more than three and one half years after the alleged infraction, the letter made clear that there was no provision in an UAW contract that would permit "a Member or a Local Representative of one plant [to] file a legitimate grievance concerning an allegation that happened in a different plantlocation being represented by a different local union." (Id. at 933.) The letter further advised that Papalios' request to have his grievance placed back into the grievance procedure was denied. (Id. at 934.)

Undeterred, on February 26, 2016, Papalios sent a letter to UAW President Williams requesting that he be allowed to appeal the December 17, 2015 denial to the UAW's Public Review Board. (Papalios Dep., Ex. C (February 23, 2016 Letter to UAW President Williams ["Feb. 23, 2016 Letter"]) at 931.) On March 8, 2016, Papalios' request to appeal to the Public Review Board was denied. (Papalios Dep., Ex. C (March 8, 2016 Letter from the Office of the UAW President to Papalios ["Mar. 8, 2016 Appeal Letter"]), beginning at 929.) In the letter, the administrative assistant to the UAW president explained, once again, that the grievance was lodged with the wrong local union. (Id. at 929.) The letter further pointed out that Papalios had failed to request an appeal to the Public Review Board within thirty days of the December 7, 2015 letter, as required by Article 33, Section 4(c) of the UAW International Constitution. (Id. at 929-30.) The appeal to the Public Review...