Ritter v. WESTERN ELEC. CO., INC.
Decision Date | 25 November 1980 |
Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 80-3427. |
Citation | 504 F. Supp. 886 |
Parties | Ann RITTER v. WESTERN ELECTRIC CO., INC. (Allentown Works); International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO; and International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, Local Union No. 1522. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania |
Minotti & DeEsch, Easton, Pa., for plaintiff.
Mark Dichter, Bruce Endy, Philadelphia, Pa., for Western Elec.
R. H. Markowitz, Philadelphia, Pa., for Internat. Brotherhood.
Promulgation of a rule of law often requires subsequent refinement and explication as courts apply it to new and unanticipated circumstances. The process does not end with the original articulation, "for the many and varying facts to which it will be applied cannot be foreseen".1 In the case at bar circumstances which will justify a union member's failure to exhaust internal union remedies prior to institution of legal proceedings require more explicit description. Plaintiff alleges that defendants International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (International Union) and Local Union 1522 thereof (Local Union) "conspired to accomplish her discharge and `loss' of her grievance"2 which she filed to protest termination of her employment by defendant Western Electric Company.3 Although the Local Union processed her grievance through the three-step procedure provided by the applicable collective bargaining agreement,4 plaintiff complains that the Local Union improperly failed to request arbitration, neglected to advise her of the status and ultimate resolution of her grievance, never gave her a copy of the Union Constitution and never advised her where to obtain one. Therefore, plaintiff contends, she could not possibly comply with the time limits for appeals prescribed by the Union Constitution.5 Accordingly, plaintiff argues, the Local Union's conduct effectively precluded her from exhausting internal union remedies and excused this requirement.
In the case at bar plaintiff challenges the availability, not the adequacy, of internal union remedies16 and admits that she never filed an appeal with the International Union.17 Unfortunately for plaintiff, her reasons for premature resort to the court will not excuse the exhaustion requirement under the circumstances presented here. Sidestepping this integral part of union self-government cannot be justified by ignorance of union procedure,18 failure to procure union rules and regulations,19 non-prejudicial delays in pressing the grievance,20 or reliance upon or attention to casual remarks of a union official.21 Moreover, a bare allegation of conspiracy between the international and local unions will not suffice, for the veracity of these allegations lacks relevance to the instant issue of whether plaintiff properly refused to exhaust internal union remedies.22 Merely alleging a conspiracy between the employer and the unions will not "counterbalance the strong federal policy of judicial deference to a labor organization's prior opportunity to resolve internal disputes".23
In addition, excusing the requirement under these circumstances "erodes the employer's confidence in the union's authority and invites members to violate terms of the collective bargaining agreement".31 Final adjustment of internal union problems by the method agreed upon by the parties remains the preferred way to resolve labor disputes.32 Plaintiff's premature suit against the Local Union deprived the parties of this opportunity and will be dismissed.
Finally, plaintiff's failure to exhaust internal union remedies also exposes the International Union and her employer to possibly unnecessary and unwarranted litigation. Had plaintiff fulfilled this requirement, it might have been shown that the Unions did not breach their duty to plaintiff. Under these circumstances the direct action permitted by Vaca v. Sipes, against the employer would not lie.33 Therefore, the complaint against the International Union and Western Electric Company will be dismissed as well.
3 Defendant Local Union was the certified collective bargaining representative of the employees at Western Electric, which discharged plaintiff in August 1978 when she refused to attend an alcohol detoxification center. Plaintiff specifically denied that she suffered from any problem with alcohol. The Local Union now moves to dismiss. For present purposes, the allegations of plaintiff's complaint will be accepted as true. Cruz v. Beto, 405 U.S. 319, 92 S.Ct. 1079, 31 L.Ed.2d 263 (1972), Cooper v. Pate, 378 U.S. 546, 84 S.Ct. 1733, 12 L.Ed.2d 1030 (1964).
4 Although the parties neither specified the exact collective bargaining agreement existing among them nor provided the Court with a copy of the Union Constitution, Article 9 of the Constitution apparently provides for a three-step grievance procedure, which may be followed by arbitration.
5 Article XXVII, § 12 of the Union Constitution provides that "any members who claim an injustice has been done him by any local union ... may appeal to the International Vice President any time within 45 days after the date of the action complained of".
Plaintiff complains that the Local Union failed to keep her informed of the status of her grievance and that she did not learn that she had "lost" her grievance until January 1979, more than four months after her discharge, when she called the Local Union president.
6 Cubas v. Rapid American Corp., 420 F.Supp. 663 (E.D.Pa.1976). To the extent that plaintiff failed to meet these pleading requirements, her motion to amend the complaint will be considered as granted in the interests of justice. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a), Lang v. Windsor Mount Joy Mutual Insurance Co., 487 F.Supp. 1303 (E.D.Pa.1980), Holman v. Carpenter Technology Corp., 484 F.Supp. 406 (E.D.Pa.1980). The Court will accordingly consider defendant's motion to dismiss, assuming the amendment...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Easton Area Joint Sewer Authority v. BUSHKILL-LOWER
...in the law. See, for example, Wolf v. National Shopmen Pension Fund, 512 F.Supp. 1182 (E.D.Pa. 1981) and Ritter v. Western Electric Co., 504 F.Supp. 886 (E.D.Pa.1980) (exhaustion of internal union remedies), Carey v. Beans, 500 F.Supp. 580 (E.D.Pa.1980), aff'd, (3d Cir. 1981), Pini v. Allst......
-
Fleming v. Mack Trucks, Inc.
...term of employment or implying one. Therefore, even viewing the pleadings in a light most favorable to plaintiff, Ritter v. Western Electric Co., 504 F.Supp. 886 (E.D.Pa.1980), and accepting as true the allegations in the complaint, Arment v. Commonwealth National Bank, 505 F.Supp. 911 (E.D......
-
Anderson v. Alpha Portland Industries, Inc.
...record clearly does not do so. Wolf v. National Shopmen Pension Fund, 512 F.Supp. 1182, 1183 (E.D.Pa.1981); see Ritter v. Western Electric Co., 504 F.Supp. 886 (E.D.Pa.1980) and cases cited therein. For example, plaintiffs may not rely, as they have attempted to, on the casual remarks of un......
-
Wolf v. National Shopmen Pension Fund
...of the union president and Pension Fund administrator to respond to counsel's letters waived this defense. See Ritter v. Western Electric Co., 504 F.Supp. 886 (E.D.Pa.1980) (plaintiff has the burden of showing why she need not comply with this requirement). Clearly, ignorance of union proce......