Sanderson v. Ford Motor Company

• Decision Date: 21 November 1973
• Docket Number: No. 72-2109.,72-2109.
• Citation: 483 F.2d 102
• Parties: W. C. SANDERSON, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Defendant-Appellant. W. C. SANDERSON, Plaintiff-Appellee. v. UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AEROSPACE AND AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA, UAW, LOCAL UNION NO. 255, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit

483 F.2d 102 (1973)

W. C. SANDERSON, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Defendant-Appellant.

W. C. SANDERSON, Plaintiff-Appellee. v. UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AEROSPACE AND AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA, UAW, LOCAL UNION NO. 255, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 72-2109.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

July 12, 1973.

Rehearing and Rehearing Denied November 21, 1973.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Almon & McAlister, Vincent McAlister, Sheffield, Ala., for Ford.

William E. Mitch, Birmingham, Ala., for United Auto.

Robert L. Potts, Frank V. Potts, Florence, Ala., for Sanderson.

Before BELL and THORNBERRY, Circuit Judges, and GROOMS, District Judge.

Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc Denied November 21, 1973.

THORNBERRY, Circuit Judge:

This labor relations case arises out of a seniority dispute between Sanderson and Morrow, two employees of Ford Motor Company at its Sheffield, Alabama plant. The dispute was initially resolved adversely to Sanderson, and he sued (1) Ford under the Labor Management Relations Act § 301, 29 U.S.C.A. § 185, for breach of the collective bargaining agreement between Ford and his Union¹ and, in a separate action, (2) the Union for breach of its duty to represent plaintiff fairly and for wrongfully inducing Ford to breach the collective bargaining agreement. The two cases were consolidated for trial, and judgment for plaintiff was entered upon jury verdicts in both cases. Damages were assessed equally against each defendant, and reinstatement was ordered. Ford and the Union appeal, arguing that the district court improperly instructed the jury on the Union's duty of fair representation toward the plaintiff and the Union's power to settle an individual employee's grievance. We reverse and remand.

I. Facts and Proceedings Below

The main business of the Ford Motor Company plant near Sheffield, Alabama, where this case arose, is to convert molten aluminum into component parts for use in Ford automobile engines and transmissions. The plant employs about 980 hourly employees, for whom the Local Union No. 255 is the exclusive collective bargaining representative.

Under the collective bargaining agreements² concluded between Ford and the Union in 1967 and in effect at all times relevant to this case the hourly employees are grouped into two basic units, the skilled trades group and the unskilled trades group. The agreements provide that seniority "shall be by interchangeable occupational groups" and that an employee's seniority in the skilled group "shall be computed from his date of entry on that classification." In other words, in a skilled classification, seniority is figured from the employee's first day on the job, and seniority he may have previously acquired in an unskilled classification does not transfer or otherwise increase his skilled seniority.

An employee acquires seniority after a total of three months' work in a trades group within a year of the date he was hired. Until he has attained seniority he is classed as a "probationary employee". Under the collective agreements, Ford retains "sole discretion as to the laying off, transferring and rehiring of probationary employees except in cases of claimed discrimination." When a probationary employee is laid off, unless Ford then anticipates that the lay-off will be temporary, or he is recalled within a time period shorter than the time he worked, his employment is terminated and he is not credited with any accumulated time toward seniority.

Ford maintains a written "promotion from within" policy, under which it gives current employees consideration for job openings within the plant before nonemployees.³ The record shows that Ford and the Union accept this policy as a satisfactory and desirable principle which Ford in fact follows and is entitled to follow in its hiring practices. Although the policy is not formally incorporated into the collective bargaining agreement, recognition of its legitimacy is implicit in the collective contract section governing promotions, which provides that when merit and ability are equal the employee with the greatest seniority shall receive preference.⁴

The adversaries in the seniority dispute which has given rise to this case are Willie Sanderson and Charles Morrow, two employees at Ford's Sheffield plant. Morrow was last rehired on November 18, 1967 as a permanent mold operator, a position classified in the unskilled trades group, and he attained seniority in that position after three months' work. In April 1969 an opening occurred for a painter-glazier, a skilled position, and Morrow bid for the job. Instead of promoting Morrow "from within" to fill the vacancy, on April 21, 1969 Ford hired Sanderson for the job, who had done temporary work for Ford before but was not a Ford employee at that time. Morrow, with the support of the Union, protested initially but abandoned his protest when Ford assured him and the Union that Sanderson's job was a temporary one—that is, one that would last less than three months and therefore would not lead to the acquisition of seniority—and that Morrow's bid would be recognized when a permanent job became available. When it subsequently became apparent that due to the illness of another painter-glazier Sanderson's job would last longer than the three months, Morrow and the Union again protested to Ford that Morrow had a superior right to the permanent painter-glazier job based on the promotion-from-within policy and Ford's specific commitment to give Morrow the next permanent painter-glazier job. Ford tentatively agreed, and laid Sanderson off on July 17, 1969, four days before the end of his third month on the job, so that he would not attain seniority before the dispute could be resolved. After protests from Sanderson, negotiations between Ford and the Union produced a "settlement."⁵ In accordance with its terms, on August 4, 1969, Sanderson was reinstated,⁶ and Morrow was transferred from his position as a mold operator to a position as painter-glazier. Ford personnel records continued to reflect April 21, 1969 as Sanderson's skilled-trades date-of-entry. Although Morrow did not begin on the job until August 4, 1969, Ford and the Union agreed to treat him as a seniority painter-glazier and to assign him an artificial skilled-trades date-of-entry of April 18, 1969, three days earlier than Sanderson's date-of-entry. Thus, under the settlement, Morrow was considered the senior painter-glazier, although he had begun work on the job over three months after Sanderson.

On August 6, 1969 Ford and the Union officials met with Sanderson and requested him to express his consent to the settlement of the dispute by signing a written letter agreement, but Sanderson refused stating he would not "sign away his seniority."⁷

Two days later, however, on August 8, Sanderson did sign the agreement, or one similar to it, after receiving assurance from Ford and the Union representatives that he would not thereby sign away his seniority. Precisely what Sanderson signed was disputed at trial. The body of the letter agreement, as it was introduced into evidence below, read:

In an effort to resolve the dispute existing between the parties relating to the respective skilled-trades date-of-entry seniority of Messrs. Charles E. Morrow, SS No. XXX-XX-XXXX and Willie C. Sanderson, SS No. XXX-XX-XXXX, into the classification of Painter-Glazier at the Sheffield Plant, the following is resolved and will be so recorded on Company records:

                                                                           Skilled Trades
                                                Company      Plant           (Painter-
                                                Service      Seniority        Glazier)
                 Employee         SS No.        Date         Date          Date-of-Entry
                Morrow
                  Charles E.   XXX-XX-XXXX      12/18/67     12/18/67         4/18/69
                Sanderson
                  Willie C.    XXX-XX-XXXX       4/21/69      4/21/69         4/21/69
                

It is further agreed to and understood, as attested by all parties involved and undersigned, that this settlement is made without any involvement of any wage adjustment to either of the above-named principals, and without establishment of precedent in any future or past instances.

Sanderson testified that the material relating to Morrow's date of entry did not appear on the letter when he signed it, thus necessarily implying that it was added later. Further, he testified to his understanding, drawn from assurances of a Ford Labor Relations Supervisor and a Union representative, that his signature would only confirm his own date-of-entry and would not waive any seniority rights. The Ford officials and the Union representatives involved, on the other hand, denied making any misrepresentations as to the contents or effect of the agreement and testified that the agreement had not been changed or modified after Sanderson signed it. The jury resolved the fact dispute in Sanderson's favor, finding that Sanderson did not voluntarily sign the letter agreement dated August 6, 1969, and that the Union had wrongfully induced him to sign it.⁸

In the weeks that followed the signing of the August 6 letter agreement, plant rumors reached Sanderson that Ford and Union officials were claiming he had indeed signed away his seniority, and he attempted to file a grievance with the various Union officials to remove any doubt concerning his seniority rights. The Union refused to process the grievance, however, taking the position that Sanderson either had no grounds for grievance as long as he was working or had waived them by signing the August 6 letter, Notwithstanding the continuing disagreement, Sanderson and Morrow both worked satisfactorily as painter-glaziers until the most senior painter-glazier, Cole, recovered from his illness and returned to work. Cole's return necessitated the lay-off of the least senior painter-glazier, and since Ford's records showed Sanderson to be least...