Harris v. Amalgamated Transit Union Local 689
825 F. Supp. 2d 82
D.D.C.2011Background
- Harris, proceeding pro se, sues Amalgamated Transit Union Local 689 seeking reinstatement as Electrical Mechanic C at WMATA; Union moves to dismiss.
- Under WMATA-CBA attendance rules, Harris was discharged on Oct 26, 2009 for excessive attendance points within 365 days.
- Grievance culminated in a March 3, 2010 last-chance settlement: Harris reinstated but automatically terminated for six months for any violations.
- Harris returned to work May 13, 2010; he was terminated again on June 29, 2010 for violating the settlement.
- Grievance denied at Steps 1-4; Union did not demand arbitration after Step 4 on July 27, 2010.
- On May 13, 2011, Harris filed suit against the Union; Union moved to dismiss.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Harris states a claim for breach of the duty of fair representation | Harris did not consent to the settlement and was not informed. | No CBA right to consent; settlement valid without Harris's ratification. | Claim fails; no breach absent specified rights. |
| Whether a union settling a grievance short of arbitration breaches the duty of fair representation | Union settled without merit and without plaintiff's approval. | Union may settle meritorious grievances without full arbitration; not per se a breach. | Not a breach; unions can settled without arbitration. |
| Whether Harris’s claim requires joining WMATA as a party | Not explicit in Complaint. | Separate dispute; Rule 19 not satisfied might bar claim. | Court did not reach; dismissal on other grounds. |
| Whether Harris state a viable hybrid LMRA § 301 claim against the union | Union breached duty by settlement handling. | No breach shown; Harris failed to plead the requisite elements. | Dismissed; no viable hybrid claim. |
Key Cases Cited
- Vaca v. Sipes, 386 U.S. 171 (1967) (duty of fair representation in union actions)
- DelCostello v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, 462 U.S. 151 (1983) (hybrid claim against union and employer)
- Titanium Metals Corp. v. N.L.R.B., 392 F.3d 439 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (settlement terms and employee rights under CBA)
- Plain v. AT&T Corp., 424 F. Supp. 2d 11 (D.D.C. 2006) (union discretion not to process every grievance)
- Brown v. Gino Morena Enters., 44 F. Supp. 2d 41 (D.D.C. 1999) (broad deference to union bargaining decisions)
- Plumbers & Pipefitters Local Union No. 520 v. N.L.R.B., 955 F.2d 744 (D.C. Cir. 1992) (rights in grievance proceedings under a CBA)