CARRINGTON v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 1:12-cv-01360

Background

Carrington worked for USPS from 2006 until his termination on January 2, 2010, after numerous unscheduled absences. He was hospitalized for psychiatric treatment in mid-December 2009.
USPS mailed a Notice of Removal to Carrington's address of record; delivery to one address was by certified mail (signature attempt failed), and a different out-of-date address received certified mail. There is dispute whether Carrington actually received the Notice.
The Union filed an Informal Step A grievance on December 29, 2009; USPS denied it as untimely under the CBA (14-day filing rule). The Union attempted a Formal Step A appeal as part of a list sent December 31, 2009.
On August 19, 2010, during a grievance “blitz,” Union and USPS representatives signed a settlement that would reinstate Carrington. USPS later refused to honor it, asserting the removal grievance was not pending (untimely) when the blitz team acted.
The Union pursued a non-compliance grievance and arbitration arguing USPS waived the timeliness defense; the arbitrator denied the grievance, concluding there was no pending grievance and thus no valid settlement. Carrington then sued the USPS and the Union in a hybrid §301/duty-of-fair-representation action. District Court granted summary judgment to both defendants.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did the Union breach its duty of fair representation regarding the removal grievance (timely filing/appeal & notification)?	Union failed to timely file/appeal and failed to keep Carrington informed; collective omissions show pattern of dishonest/arbitrary conduct.	Union made timely, reasonable choices under the CBA and any failures were negligent, not arbitrary or in bad faith.	Court assumed arguendo some Union failings but held Carrington failed to show USPS breached the CBA, so hybrid claim fails; summary judgment for defendants.
Did the Union breach its duty in handling the non-compliance (blitz) grievance/arbitration (failure to investigate timeliness)?	Union should have investigated timeliness and presented evidence to arbitrator; reliance on waiver theory was unreasonable.	Union reasonably relied on a plausible CBA waiver argument (USPS did not raise timeliness during blitz); tactical choice protected by wide deference.	Court held the Union's strategy was reasonable and not arbitrary/bad faith; summary judgment for defendants.
Did USPS breach the Collective Bargaining Agreement by removing Carrington (e.g., improper notice)?	USPS failed to ensure Carrington actually received the Notice; removal lacked just cause given medical evidence.	USPS complied with the CBA by mailing the Notice to Carrington's address of record; employee is responsible for updating address; no contractual duty to do more.	Court found undisputed that USPS mailed to the address of record and no CBA violation shown; summary judgment for USPS.
Is Carrington entitled to Back Pay under the Back Pay Act (5 U.S.C. § 5596)?	Back pay is available if hybrid claim succeeds.	Back pay contingent on success of hybrid claims; defendants prevail on those claims.	Because hybrid claims fail, back pay claim fails as a remedy-stage measure; summary judgment for USPS.

Key Cases Cited

DelCostello v. Int'l Bhd. of Teamsters, 462 U.S. 151 (union breach must be shown before employer §301 claim proceeds)
United Parcel Serv., Inc. v. Mitchell, 451 U.S. 56 (employee must prove both union breach and contract breach in hybrid claim)
Vaca v. Sipes, 386 U.S. 171 (duty of fair representation defined: arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad faith)
Air Line Pilots Ass'n v. O'Neill, 499 U.S. 65 (judicial review of union conduct is highly deferential; wide range of reasonableness)
Marquez v. Screen Actors Guild, 525 U.S. 33 (union actions are arbitrary only if irrational; tactical errors alone insufficient)
United Steelworkers of Am. v. Rawson, 495 U.S. 362 (mere negligence does not state a duty-of-fair-representation breach)