Bowerman v. UAW LOCAL 12
646 F.3d 360
6th Cir.2011Background
- Plaintiffs are machine repairmen at Chrysler plants in Toledo, represented by Local 12 and the UAW; they allege the union breached its duty of fair representation by favoring millwrights and electricians over machine repairmen.
- Prior to 1997, millwrights and electricians were UAW-represented while machine repairmen were represented by MESA; in 1997 MESA members became UAW members under a new CBA.
- In 1999, Toledo North plant created lines of demarcation (LODs) to allocate work among trades; disputes over LODs arose due to overlapping skilled trades and changing job responsibilities.
- In 2001 Local 12 formed a Lines of Demarcation Committee (LDC) with one vote per trade; LDC decisions 1–10 (2001–2002) set the demarcations later challenged by plaintiffs.
- A 2003 CBA led to a joint task force and further demarcation discussions; Edwards later issued new lines in 2005 amid ongoing dissatisfaction.
- Plaintiffs filed suit August 26, 2002; district court granted summary judgment for defendants for failure to exhaust remedies; on appeal, this court reversed on statute-of-limitations issues and remanded for merits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether pre-February 26, 2002 LDC decisions are time-barred by statute of limitations | Plaintiffs relied on continuing-violation theory to aggregate all LDC actions | Discrete LDC acts before 2/26/2002 were timely focused events | Yes; pre-2/26/2002 LDC actions are time-barred under Morgan |
| Whether Local 12’s demarcation decisions were arbitrary or discriminatory | Lines favored electricians/millwrights over machine repairmen without justification | Lines were a rational exercise of union discretion given broader bargaining context | No; decisions not irrational or discriminatory; proper deference to union discretion |
| Whether Breininger’s hiring-hall standard applies and affects duty of fair representation | UAW Local 12 acted like a hiring hall and owed higher duty | This case did not involve a union-run hiring hall; no heightened duty required | No heightened standard; Breininger does not impose higher duty here |
Key Cases Cited
- DelCostello v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, 462 U.S. 151 (U.S. 1983) (six-month breach-of-fair-representation limitations period)
- Morgan v. Nat'l R.R. Passenger Corp., 536 U.S. 101 (U.S. 2002) (discrete acts rule for limitations period under fair representation)
- Bell v. Ohio State Univ., 351 F.3d 240 (6th Cir. 2003) (continuing-violation categories (discussed))
- O'Neill v. Air Line Pilots Ass'n, Int'l, 499 U.S. 65 (U.S. 1991) (arbitrary, discriminatory, or bad-faith standard for arbitrariness)
- Vaca v. Sipes, 386 U.S. 171 (U.S. 1967) (duty of fair representation applies when conduct is arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad faith)
- Ratkosky v. United Transp. Union, 843 F.2d 869 (6th Cir. 1988) (arbitrariness and reasonableness standards for fair representation)
- Ford Motor Co. v. Huffman, 345 U.S. 330 (U.S. 1953) (complete good faith and honesty of purpose in exercise of discretion)
- Breininger v. Sheet Metal Workers Int'l Ass'n Local Union No. 6, 493 U.S. 67 (U.S. 1989) (duty of fair representation in hiring halls; higher duty not necessarily imposed here)