Erler v. Graham Packaging Company, LP
4:14-cv-00931
E.D. Mo.Aug 10, 2015Background
- Plaintiffs were Graham employees and union members laid off between Nov 2012 and July 2013; the Union represented them under a 2012–2015 CBA.
- CBA Article 23 provided severance pay on plant closing; Article 25 required written amendment for changes.
- On October 3, 2013 Graham and the Union executed a written Severance Agreement (SA) addressing severance and benefits; the SA limited severance to employees "actively working" or laid-off employees who were recalled and worked until released.
- Laid-off plaintiffs filed a grievance claiming denial of Article 23 severance; the employer denied the grievance citing the SA; a union panel declined to advance the grievance to arbitration.
- Plaintiffs sued under Section 301 alleging Graham breached the CBA and the Union breached its duty of fair representation; both defendants moved for summary judgment.
- The district court found the SA superseded Article 23 for the plant closing and granted summary judgment for both Graham and the Union.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Article 23 of the CBA entitled laid-off employees to severance | Article 23’s plant-closing severance applies regardless of layoff status | The later-executed SA modified Article 23 to limit severance to active or recalled employees | Held for defendants: the SA controlled and excluded laid-off, non-recalled employees |
| Whether the SA validly amended the CBA | SA cannot defeat bargained Article 23 rights | SA was a written modification complying with Article 25 and covered same subject matter | Held for defendants: SA validly amended the CBA as to severance |
| Whether Graham breached the CBA by denying severance to laid-off employees | Graham breached Article 23 by refusing severance to laid-off employees | Graham complied with the SA’s terms and thus did not breach | Held for defendants: no breach under the controlling SA |
| Whether the Union breached its duty of fair representation by not pursuing arbitration | Union failed to protect laid-off members’ Article 23 rights | Union reasonably relied on SA, grievance review, and panel decision; conduct not arbitrary/bad faith | Held for defendants: no breach of duty of fair representation |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (summary judgment standard)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment burden-shifting)
- Vaca v. Sipes, 386 U.S. 171 (union duty of fair representation standard)
- Hines v. Anchor Motor Freight, Inc., 424 U.S. 554 (Section 301 federal jurisdiction over labor disputes)
- Scott v. United Auto., 242 F.3d 837 (hybrid §301 claim requires proving both employer breach and union breach)
- GCIU Emp’r Ret. Fund v. Chi. Tribune Co., 66 F.3d 862 (later agreement supersedes earlier agreement on same subject)