Pratt v. United Auto., Aerospace and Agr. Implement Workers of America, Local 1435, 90-3783

• Decision Date: 13 September 1991
• Docket Number: No. 90-3783,90-3783
• Citation: 939 F.2d 385
• Parties: 137 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2937, 119 Lab.Cas. P 10,838, 121 Lab.Cas. P 10,053 Ted PRATT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AEROSPACE AND AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL 1435, Defendant-Appellee.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit

Page 385

939 F.2d 385

137 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2937, 119 Lab.Cas. P 10,838,

121 Lab.Cas. P 10,053

Ted PRATT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AEROSPACE AND AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT

WORKERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL 1435, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 90-3783.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

Argued April 5, 1991.

Decided July 23, 1991.

Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc

Denied Sept. 13, 1991.

Thomas A. Sobecki (argued), Toledo, Ohio, for plaintiff-appellant.

Joan Torzewski (argued), Lackey, Nusbaum, Harris, Reny & Torzewski, Toledo, Ohio, for defendant-appellee.

Before MERRITT, Chief Circuit Judge, and KENNEDY and JONES, Circuit Judges.

NATHANIEL R. JONES, Circuit Judge.

Plaintiff-appellant Ted Pratt appeals the district court's grant of summary judgment for the defendant-appellee United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Workers of America, Local 1435 ("the Union") in this action for breach of the Union's duty of fair representation in relation to the termination of Pratt's employment. For the reasons that follow, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.

I.

Pratt filed his complaint on February 15, 1989. In his complaint he alleged jurisdiction based upon Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. Sec. 185, Section 9(a) of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. Sec. 159(a), and 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1337. Pratt also claimed pendent jurisdiction over his state law claims.

In Count I of his complaint, Pratt alleged that the Union breached its duty of fair representation. In addition, Pratt alleged fraud (Count II); negligent misrepresentation (Count III); interference with contracts (Count IV); intentional infliction of emotional distress (Count V); and negligent infliction of emotional distress (Count VI). Each of these allegations was in relation to the termination of Pratt's employment with Chrysler corporation.

Pratt had been an employee of Chrysler from May of 1968 and had been a member of the Union throughout his employment at Chrysler. In his later years with Chrysler, Pratt suffered from a recurring back problem which resulted in his missing a number of work days. On July 20, 1988, Pratt experienced a severe back attack and could not go to work. He testified that he tried unsuccessfully to see his regular physician on that day, however, on July 21, he obtained an appointment with another doctor who put him on sick leave for the remainder of the week.

The following week there was a shutdown in Pratt's department. Pratt testified that he called the plant on the Sunday evening before the shutdown to make sure it was going to occur. As a consequence, he did not report to work during that week. The Union suggests that due to Pratt's seniority status, he might have been able to bump a worker from another department. Thus, the Union argues that Pratt was not necessarily on lay-off status during the week of July 24. Due to a strep throat problem Pratt missed the following week of work. This medical condition necessitated another trip to the doctor which led to him being placed on sick leave for the entire week.

During the first week in August, Pratt received a call from Dennis Crawford, his Local 1425 union steward. Crawford informed him that he needed a doctor's excuse for a day in June, three days prior to the shutdown in July, and the week following the shutdown. Pratt told Crawford he had excuses for all that time except the date in June. He testified that he did not know anything about an absence in June.

The next day, Pratt received a letter from Chrysler informing that him that he had been absent from work since July 19, 1988 and that he had to provide adequate reasons for his absence. The letter also required that Pratt report to the Plant Employment Office by August 15, 1988, regarding the unexcused absences. That same day, Pratt received a telephone call from Jack Bartram, the Benefits Plan Representative for the Union. Bartram informed Pratt that he was required to produce excuses for the day in June, the week of the shutdown, the week following the shutdown and all the time up to the time he returned to work. Pratt testified that he asked Bartram why he had to have an excuse for the week of the shutdown. Bartram reportedly said that he was told that these excuses were all required. Pratt questioned Bartram about the Chrysler letter, and Bartram said he would be dismissed if he did not come up with medical excuses for all the time out. Pratt informed Bartram that he could not produce an excuse for the week of the shutdown or the unknown day in June.

On August 15, Pratt reported to the employment office with his wife. He encountered Bartram behind the counter and asked him if he still needed to have an excuse for the shutdown week and the June day. Bartram said yes. Pratt then protested and asked if his job would be terminated. Bartram again said yes. Pratt did not produce the medical excuses for the days he had been ill, nor did he converse with any representative of Chrysler after his conversation with Bartram. However, the court found that when he left the office he was under the impression that he had been fired.

On his way to his car, Pratt ran into Woody McClain and Tom Orosz. McClain and Orosz were both union officials. They asked him what he was going to do. He responded that he might have a job in Mississippi. McClain told Pratt that it would be in his best interest to immediately go back to the office and file a quit slip. McClain reportedly indicated that he could get Pratt a job in his department in a couple of months, but only if Pratt quit and was not fired. Pratt then returned to the office and signed a quit slip. As his reason for quitting, he stated that he had another job.

Several weeks later, Pratt contacted John Rhodes, the Local 1435 committeeman, about getting his old job back. Rhodes reportedly told him that "a quit is a quit" and the Union did not have to represent him since he quit. Pratt testified that he told Rhodes that he only signed the quit slip because McClain had told him to do so. Reportedly, Rhodes put Pratt on hold and asked McClain if this was true. Rhodes then got back on the line and said that McClain denied telling him to quit.

Pratt testified that he understood that he was required to exhaust all union procedures before he could sue in federal court. He alleges that he attempted to do this by calling his brother, Rolland Pratt, who was a former union official and an employee at the plant for 22 years. Rolland Pratt evidently contacted James Watkins, a UAW international servicing representative for the plant. Watkins reportedly told Rolland Pratt that since Pratt had quit there was nothing they could do to get his job back.

Pratt brought this action in federal district court without instituting any intra-union proceeding. The Union filed for summary judgment prior to trial and the district court granted the Union's motion and dismissed the case in its entirety, including the pendent state claims. This timely appeal followed.

II.

Pratt first contends that the district court erred in concluding that jurisdiction in this case was based upon Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act, when in fact, the case was brought under Section 9(a) of the National Labor Relations Act. Section 301 provides a cause of action against an employer or a union for injuries resulting from a breach of a collective bargaining agreement. 29 U.S.C. Sec. 185(a) (1988); Bagsby v. Lewis Bros. Inc. of Tenn., 820 F.2d 799 (6th Cir.1987). Under Bagsby, to be successful in a Section 301 action against the union or the employer, the plaintiff must show that the employer breached the collective bargaining agreement and that the union breached its duty of fair representation. 820 F.2d at 801. "Unless [the plaintiff] demonstrates both violations, he can not succeed against either party." Id. (emphasis original).

Section 9(a) of the National Labor Relations Act, by virtue of its grant of exclusive representation status to a union over employees that make up a bargaining unit, creates a duty of fair representation on the representative union. 29 U.S.C. Sec. 159(a) (1988); Humphrey v. Moore, 375 U.S. 335, 342, 84 S.Ct. 363, 367, 11 L.Ed.2d 370 (1964). This duty does not depend on the existence of a collective bargaining agreement. Rather, "it flows from the union's statutory position as exclusive representative and exists both before and after the execution of an agreement." Storey v. Local 327, 759 F.2d 517, 523 (6th Cir.1985). Section 9(a), in conjunction with 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1337, creates a jurisdictional basis for actions for breach of the duty of fair representation independent of Section 301. Breininger v. Sheet Metal Workers Int'l, 493 U.S. 67, 110 S.Ct. 424, 434-35, 107 L.Ed.2d 388 (1989); Storey, 759 F.2d at 518-19.

Pratt asserts that while his complaint alleged jurisdiction based upon both Section 301 and Section 9(a), it was actually an action against the Union for breach of its duty of fair representation independent of the collective bargaining agreement. Therefore, Pratt contends, the district court erred in finding that Pratt's claim against the Union failed because he had not alleged a breach of contract on the part of Chrysler. We agree.

In rejecting Pratt's claim of independent jurisdiction for his action under Sections 9(a) and 1337, the district court relied upon White v. Anchor Motor Freight, Inc., 899 F.2d 555 (6th Cir.1990). In White, an employee was discharged for being involved in a "major" accident. Such a discharge was permissible under the collective bargaining agreement then in place. The employee proceeded through existing union remedies and then brought an action in district court. The complaint alleged jurisdiction under both Section 301 and Section 9(a). After trial, the district court concluded that the plaintiff had produced no evidence that the classification of the action as "major" was inappropriate;...