Thompson v. Aluminum Co. of AM.
| Decision Date | 05 December 2001 |
| Docket Number | No. 01-1617,AFL-CIO,01-1617 |
| Parties | (4th Cir. 2002) JAMES E. THOMPSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ALUMINUM COMPANY OF AMERICA; UNITED STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA,CLC; UNITED STEELWORKERS LOCAL 303, Defendants-Appellees. Argued: |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit |
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. William L. Osteen, District Judge. (CA-99-943-1) [Copyrighted Material Omitted] COUNSEL ARGUED: Fred Thurman Hamlet, Sr., Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Pamela W. Connelly, LEBOEUF, LAMB, GREENE & MACRAE, L.L.P., Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, for Appellee Alcoa; Arlus Jeremiah Stephens, Assistant General Counsel, UNITED STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, for Appellee Union. ON BRIEF: William V. Conley, LEBOEUF, LAMB, GREENE & MACRAE, L.L.P., Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, for Appellee Alcoa.
Before MOTZ, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by published opinion. Judge Gregory wrote the opinion, in which Judge Motz and Judge King joined.
James E. Thompson appeals the district court's order granting summary judgment in favor of his employer, Alcoa Inc., and in favor of the Union appellees, United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO-CLC and United Steelworkers, Local 303. The district court dismissed Thompson's complaint, which was filed against Alcoa for breach of contract pursuant to Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act and against the Union for breach of its duty of fair representation. Because there is no evidence to support Thompson's claim against the Union for breach of its duty of fair representation, we affirm.
Appellant James Thompson was employed by Alcoa in 1980 at its Mobile, Alabama plant. In 1983, following layoffs in Mobile, he transferred to Alcoa's Badin, North Carolina plant. The United Steelworkers of America have represented Alcoa employees since 1942. The Badin plant is covered by a master agreement between Alcoa and the Union, which is administered by Local Union 303.
At the Badin plant, Thompson worked as a pot tender and a pot servicer. Both jobs exposed Thompson to smoke, fumes, dust, hydrogen fluoride gases, sulfur, coal tar, various oxides, and other chemicals. Sometime in 1986 or 1987, Thompson began having pulmonary problems at work. In June of 1995, he filed a workers' compensation claim asserting that his asthmatic condition was the result of exposure to toxic fumes at the Badin plant. Alcoa denied his claim, taking the position that his medical problems were not work-related.
In November 1995, Thompson informed the potroom safety coordinator that he could not wear the forced-air respirator required for pot servicers. He argued that his asthmatic condition made wearing a respirator unsafe. Alcoa attempted to fit Thompson with various breathing masks, but Thompson claimed they did not help. On November 17, 1995, Thompson was disciplined for allegedly refusing to wear a mask while working. A five day suspension was approved, and as a result, Thompson filed Grievance 1844.
As a result of the grievance, Alcoa sent Thompson to see a company doctor, Dr. Landis in Charlotte, North Carolina. Dr. Landis prepared a report for Alcoa in which he corroborated Thompson's assertion that he was having difficulty breathing at work. However, Dr. Landis reported that it was unclear whether this problem was caused by Thompson's employment at Alcoa. Alcoa then determined that Thompson was unable to work under the job requirements, which required him to wear a mask at all times.
On January 29, 1996, Alcoa removed Thompson from his pot servicer position and placed him on sickness and accident (S&A) leave. Thompson was told that there were no other positions available in Badin at that time. While not working, Thompson was supposed to draw S&A pay.
At the time he was placed on S&A leave, Thompson made an oral request to transfer to Alcoa's plant in Point Comfort, Texas, pursuant to Section 80(1)(c)1 of the union contract. Alcoa refused his oral request, arguing that Section 80 did not apply because there had been no determination that Thompson's medical condition was in fact work-related.
Two weeks after Alcoa's refusal of his transfer request, Thompson left North Carolina, returning to Alabama so that his parents could help support him and his two children. He failed to pursue the grievance procedure by never requesting that a union representative appeal his supervisor's denial of his transfer request.2
Thompson remained in Alabama for the next year and a half on S&A leave. On July 7, 1997, he was recalled to the Badin plant to work as a caster helper, a position at a lower job grade and lower hourly rate. Shortly after his return, on July 24, 1997, Thompson approached a Local 303 official and filed Grievance 1969, alleging a violation of Section 80 for the 1996 denial of his transfer request. Grievance 1969 stated, Grievance 1969 reported the date of the alleged incident as July 24, 1997, the same day the grievance was initiated. Thompson sought to be moved to Point Comfort, Texas.3
Alcoa denied Grievance 1969 at Step 2 of the grievance procedure. Subsequently, Thompson's workers' compensation claim was resolved on April 20, 1998.4 Therefore, another Step 2 meeting was held to address his grievance in light of the resolution. Alcoa again denied Grievance 1969, and so a Step 3 meeting was held in January of 1999. Alcoa denied the grievance at Step 3, based on two findings. First, because Alcoa had disputed Thompson's contention that his asthma was work-related in January 1996, the company asserted that Section 80 did not apply. Second, when Grievance 1969 was filed in July of 1997, Thompson had resumed work at the plant, rendering Section 80 inapplicable.
Following Alcoa's denial of the transfer grievance at Step 3, the Union decided not to pursue arbitration. Union representative Joe Weber, who presented the case at Step 3, spoke with a Union Alcoa specialist, John Herron, about the case. Herron advised Weber not to seek arbitration because Thompson would not prevail. Herron testified that the problem with the grievance was that Thompson did not pursue it until he was already back at the plant working full time. Once Thompson was working in his new job, and especially after he received the wage enhancement, Herron believed that Alcoa had complied with the Section 80 mandate.
Thompson argues that Alcoa breached the collective bargaining agreement by denying the transfer requests made in January 1996 and July 1997. He also claims that the Union breached its duty of fair representation by failing to appeal Grievance 1969 to arbitration. He filed an action in state court, which was removed to the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina. Following discovery, the defendants moved for summary judgment, which was granted on March 30, 2001.
On appeal, decisions granting summary judgment are reviewed de novo. JKC Holding Co. LLC v. Washington Sports Ventures, Inc., 264 F.3d 459, 465 (4th Cir. 2001). In reviewing the evidence, we draw all reasonable inferences in favor of Thompson, the non-moving party. We make no credibility determinations, and we do not weigh the evidence. Edell & Assoc., P.C. v. Law Offices of Peter G. Angelos, 264 F.3d 424, 435 (4th Cir. 2001). "One of the principal purposes of the summary judgment rule is to isolate and dispose of factually unsupported claims or defenses." Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323-24 (1986).
Summary judgment is appropriate when "the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c).
Thompson filed this action against Alcoa for breach of contract pursuant to S 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. S 185, and against the Union for breach of its duty of fair representation. This is a so-called "hybrid 301" action, where in order to prevail on the merits against either party, an employee must prove both 1) that the union breached its duty of fair representation and 2) that his employer violated the collective bargaining agreement. See DelCostello v. Int'l Brotherhood of Teamsters, 462 U.S. 151, 164-65 (1983). Though both claims are brought in one suit, a cause of action "will only lie against an employer if the union has breached its duty of fair representation of the employee." Amburgey v. Consolidation Coal Co., 923 F.2d 27, 29 (4th Cir. 1991) (citing Vaca v. Sipes, 386 U.S. 171, 186 (1967)).5 Accordingly, an employee "must prevail upon his unfair representation claim before he may even litigate the merits of his S 301 claim against the employer." United Parcel Service , Inc. v. Mitchell, 451 U.S. 56, 67 (1981) (Stewart, J., concurring). Because Thompson cannot demonstrate that the Union breached its duty of fair representation when it declined to appeal Grievance 1969 to arbitration, we affirm the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Alcoa and the Union.
Thompson's claims against the Union and Alcoa are "interlocked: neither claim is viable if the other fails." See Crider v. Spectrulite Consortium, Inc., 130 F.3d 1238, 1241 (7th Cir. 1997). However, we first address the claim against the Union, because federal courts review allegations against employers for breach of collective bargaining agreements only when an employee has first proved that the union representing him breached its duty of fair representation. Vaca, 386 U.S. at 186.
It is well established that unions, as exclusive bargaining agents in the negotiation, administration...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Badgett v. Federal Express Corp., No. 1:04 CV 220.
...determinations or weigh the evidence." Williams v. Staples, Inc., 372 F.3d 662, 667 (4th Cir.2004) (citing Thompson v. Aluminum Co. of Am., 276 F.3d 651, 656 (4th Cir.2002)). Although the court must view the facts in the light most favorable to the nonmovant, see Anderson, 477 U.S. at 255, ......
-
Mullins v. Union of Operating Engineers Local 77
...large." Griffin, 469 F.2d at 183 (citing Encina v. Tony Lama Boot Co., 448 F.2d 1264 (5th Cir.1971)); see Thompson v. Aluminum Company of America, 276 F.3d 651, 657-58 (4th Cir.2002) (holding that union has discretion not to file a grievance that it believes has no chance of success due to ......
-
Simo v. Union of Needletrades, Indus.
...requires a separate analysis, because each of these requirements represents a distinct and separate obligation." Thompson v. Aluminum Co. of Am., 276 F.3d 651, 657(4th Cir.2002). Arbitrariness in the context of contract negotiations is governed by the standard articulated by the Supreme Cou......
-
Simo v. Union of Needletrades, Indus. & Textile
...a separate analysis, because each of these requirements represents a distinct and separate obligation." Thompson v. Aluminum Co. of Am., 276 F.3d 651, 657 (4th Cir.2002). Arbitrariness in the context of contract negotiations is governed by the standard articulated by the Supreme Court in O'......