Cameron v. CHANG-CRAFT
251 P.3d 1008
Alaska2011Background
- Chang-Craft sued Alaska Airlines for wrongful termination under a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) with the Union, claiming the Union breached its duty of fair representation in handling her grievance.
- Chang-Craft’s termination stemmed from a December 14–15, 2003 incident at the cargo facility, including an alleged inappropriate gun-related interaction and an implied resignation later recharacterized by the employer as an involuntary termination.
- The Union’s tentative decision was to withdraw the grievance from arbitration, later finalizing withdrawal after a 15-month delay without an explanatory rationale.
- Chang-Craft’s grievance progressed through step-one and step-two proceedings, where the Union’s handling raised questions about representation and gathering pertinent evidence.
- In 2008 the jury found the employer wrongful terminated Chang-Craft and that the Union breached its duty of fair representation, awarding approximately $479,111 in damages; the trial court denied motions for JNOV, remittitur, and a new trial, which the Alaska Supreme Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Union breached its duty of fair representation | Chang-Craft argues the Union disregarded her meritorious grievance | Alaska Airlines contends the delay was nonprejudicial and the Union exercised judgment | Yes; evidence supports breach of duty of fair representation |
| Standards and review for directed verdict/JNOV | Chang-Craft asserts sufficient evidence to submit to jury | Alaska Airlines argues insufficient evidence for a reasonable jury | Standards applied; denials affirmed on full record |
| Remittitur/new trial on damages | Damages, especially travel benefits, were properly shown | Damages were speculative and improperly calculated | No abuse of discretion in denying remittitur/new trial; evidence supported award |
| Damages calculation for travel benefits | Travel benefits attributable to Chang-Craft (and transferable) were recoverable | Non-dependent family travel benefits were excluded by pretrial order | Evidence supported the jury’s award within the trial court’s instruction guiding travel benefits |
Key Cases Cited
- Vaca v. Sipes, 386 U.S. 171 (U.S. 1967) (federal duty of fair representation; exhaustion and breach standard)
- Schaub v. K & L Distribs., Inc., 115 P.3d 555 (Alaska 2005) (additional care in termination grievances; arbitrary conduct standard)
- Tenorio v. NLRB, 680 F.2d 598 (9th Cir. 1982) (investigate grievances; varied strength of grievances affects duty)
- Marquez v. Screen Actors Guild, Inc., 525 U.S. 33 (U.S. 1998) (wide range of reasonableness; discretion granted to unions)
- Air Line Pilots Ass'n, Int'l v. O'Neill, 499 U.S. 65 (U.S. 1991) (arbitrary conduct standard; rational basis for union actions)
- United Steelworkers of Am., AFL-CIO-CLC v. Rawson, 495 U.S. 362 (U.S. 1990) (arbitrary conduct in duty of fair representation standard)
- City of Whittier v. Whittier Fuel & Marine Corp., 577 P.2d 216 (Alaska 1978) (damages and certainty; future losses must be reasonably calculated)