Balser v. International Union of Electronic, Electrical, Salaried, MacHine & Furniture Workers (IUE) Local 201
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 22896
| 1st Cir. | 2011Background
- Balser was hired by GE in July 2007 as a Zyglo Inspector at River Works, subject to the GE/Local 201 CBA.
- GE posted two Zyglo Sorter openings in February 2008 and intended to fill them by upgrade, but Balser was laid off for lack of work before she started.
- Balser interviewed and accepted the Zyglo Sorter position on February 14, 2008, with start date February 19 or 20, 2008; the position was later classified as temporary due to Doherty’s return from sick leave.
- Union involvement arose after a member complained Balser was being placed in a seniority-based position; Local 201 investigated and debated whether Balser should be in the Zyglo Sorter role.
- Balser’s Zyglo Sorter position was reclassified from permanent to temporary by February 19, 2008; Balser started February 20, 2008, with nine Zyglo Sorters on duty.
- Balser filed a grievance in April 2008; Local 201 investigated and concluded the contested position may have been correctly reclassified and did not arbitrate due to insufficient evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did GE's reclassification violate the CBA? | Balser argues the reclassification was improper and biased by union pressure. | GE and Local 201 contend the CBA gives GE exclusive right to manage staffing, including reclassifications. | No CBA violation; GE had exclusive right to reclassify before Balser punched in. |
| Did the Union breach its duty of fair representation? | Balser claims Local 201 colluded with GE and mishandled her grievance. | Union adequately investigated and had a factual basis to decide not to proceed to arbitration. | Unavailing; no breach of the duty of fair representation proven. |
| Can a hybrid LMRA claim succeed without proof of both parts? | Balser must show GE violated the CBA and the union breached its duty to represent. | Without GE’s violation of the CBA, the hybrid claim fails. | District court correct to grant summary judgment; Balser failed to prove GE violated the CBA. |
Key Cases Cited
- DelCostello v. Int'l Bhd. of Teamsters, 462 U.S. 151 (U.S. Supreme Court, 1983) (hybrid LMRA claim requires showing employer violation and union breach)
- Fant v. New Eng. Power Serv., 239 F.3d 8 (1st Cir. 2001) (hybrid claim framework in First Circuit)
- Mulvihill v. Top-Flite Golf Co., 335 F.3d 15 (1st Cir. 2003) (proof required for CBA violation and union duty in hybrid action)
- Laurin v. The Providence Hosp., 150 F.3d 52 (1st Cir. 1998) (hybrid claims require showing both prongs)
- Goulet v. New Penn Motor Exp., Inc., 512 F.3d 34 (1st Cir. 2008) (the court's analysis of hybrid section 301 claims)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (U.S. Supreme Court, 1986) (summary judgment standard and burden-shifting framework)