Long v. Safeway, Inc.
842 F. Supp. 2d 141
D.D.C.2012Background
- Plaintiff, a former Safeway employee, alleges termination was without just cause and union failed to fairly represent her during grievance proceedings.
- Plaintiff filed in DC Superior Court; Safeway and Local 400 removed the case to federal court under LMRA § 301 jurisidiction.
- Timeline: Oct 29, 2010 coupon-misuse suspension; Nov 1, 2010 grievance; Nov 9, 2010 meeting with forms and alleged video evidence; Dec 22, 2010 further meeting; Dec 23, 2010 termination; Dec 30, 2010 Local 400 decision not to arbitrate.
- Local 400 informed plaintiff it found no basis for arbitration; union later stated evidence showed coupon policy violation; plaintiff disputed the results in letters.
- Statement of claim centers on federal LMRA claim for breach of the union's duty of fair representation and employer liability, with exhaustion of internal remedies raised.
- Court grants motions to dismiss for failure to state a federal claim under Rule 12(b)(6); declines supplemental jurisdiction over any non-federal claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Local 400 breach its duty of fair representation? | Plaintiff asserts union failed to fairly represent her and withheld materials. | Union acted within discretion, adequately represented her, and had a basis to deny arbitration. | No plausible breach; dismissal granted. |
| Did plaintiff exhaust internal union remedies before bringing suit? | Exhaustion not properly completed due to union conduct. | Exhaustion not jurisdictional and not satisfied here; union process was followed. | Exhaustion not required to proceed; court treats as part of the dismissal context; still dismissed on merits. |
| Can plaintiff maintain a federal LMRA § 301 claim against Safeway based on union conduct? | Safeway violated the collective bargaining agreement or conspired with the union to deny fair representation. | Employer bears no duty to police the union’s representation; no misbehavior shown by Safeway. | Dismissed; no LMRA claim against Safeway. |
Key Cases Cited
- Brown v. Gino Morena Enterprises, 44 F. Supp. 2d 41 (D.D.C. 1999) (hybrid § 301/fair representation recognition and pleading)
- O'Hara v. District No. 1–PCD, MEBA, AFL-CIO, 56 F.3d 1514 (D.C. Cir. 1995) (duty to fairly represent; internal union review)
- DelCostello v. International Bhd. of Teamsters, 462 U.S. 151 (1983) (exhaustion of contractual remedies; union duty context)
- Vaca v. Sipes, 386 U.S. 171 (1967) (union duty to fair representation in grievance handling)
- Air Line Pilots Ass'n v. O'Neill, 499 U.S. 65 (1981) (arbitrary, discriminatory, or bad-faith conduct standard)
- American Postal Workers Union, AFL-CIO v. American Postal Workers Union, AFL-CIO, 665 F.2d 1096 (D.C. Cir. 1981) (employer-freedom from duty to represent; relationship between union and employer)