John Rutherford v. Judge & Dolph, L, 707 F.3d 710

Eight truck drivers employed by Judge & Dolph (J&D) under Local 705 and the International Brotherhood of Teamsters; the CBA set wages, union dues deductions, and just-cause termination, with an arbitration requirement for grievances; Article 23 evergreen clause provided automatic continuation unless 60-day notice to terminate was given; Local 705 served a clear termination notice on Nov 16, 2006, before the expiration date of March 31, 2007; negotiations for a successor contract continued through expiration with no new CBA signed after Aug 2008; in June–July 2008 Plaintiffs were terminated for alleged “just cause” reasons, and J&D refused arbitration claiming the CBA had expired; Local 705 settled the related NLRB proceeding in April 2009 for about 25% of claimed damages, but Plaintiffs rejected the settlement and Local 705 did not continue pursuing the NLRB action; Plaintiffs sued under LMRA §301 alleging CBA violation by J&D and breach of Local 705’s duty of fair representation, with district court dismissing early on CBA expiration and failure to plead rationally; on appeal, the Seventh Circuit addressed jurisdictional and merits issues and affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Local 705 can be sued under §301 as part of a hybrid claim.	Appellants contend Local 705 breached its duty of fair representation.	Local 705 is not a proper party in a hybrid §301 claim because the CBA does not require NLRB action and the union’s conduct is not an injury to a contractual right.	Local 705 claim dismissed for lack of jurisdiction; not a true hybrid §301 claim.
Whether J&D breached the CBA by terminating for reasons alleged after expiration.	Termination after expiration violated the CBA.	Notice to terminate was unambiguous and timely under Article 23; the CBA expired March 31, 2007.	J&D did not breach; CBA expired and notice terminated the agreement.
Whether the case should be treated as summary judgment rather than a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal.	Evidence outside pleadings should support ovuer summary judgement.	District court should or would treat as summary judgment under 12(d).	Motions treated as summary judgment; evidence considered appropriately; affirmed on merits.

Vaca v. Sipes, 386 U.S. 171 (1967) (hybrid §301 doctrine allows union's duty-of-representation claim when arbitration is mandatory)
Copeland v. Penske Logistics LLC, 675 F.3d 1040 (7th Cir. 2012) (hybrid and jurisdictional considerations under §301)
McLeod v. Arrow Marine Transp., Inc., 258 F.3d 608 (7th Cir. 2001) (excusability from exhausting contractual remedies when employer repudiates procedures)
Roman v. U.S. Postal Serv., 821 F.2d 382 (7th Cir. 1987) (employer repudiation can excuse exhausting contractual remedies)
188 LLC v. Trinity Indus. Inc., 300 F.3d 730 (7th Cir. 2002) (pleadings and evidence considerations in Rule 12(d) context)
Nemsky v. ConocoPhillips Co., 574 F.3d 859 (7th Cir. 2009) (hybrid §301 actions are inextricably interdependent)
OPEIU v. Wood Cnty. Telephone Co., 408 F.3d 314 (7th Cir. 2005) (distinguishes termination vs. reopen notices in evergreen clauses)
Baker v. Fleet Maintenance, Inc., 409 F.2d 551 (7th Cir. 1969) (ambiguity in termination language in evergreen clauses)