Matthew Nagel v. United Food and Com. Workers, 63 F.4th 730

United Food and Commercial Workers Local 653 represented grocery employees whose defined-benefit pension plan suffered investment losses and became underfunded, entering "endangered" and later "seriously endangered" status.
In 2018, the union and grocers negotiated a new CBA that switched from a guaranteed defined-benefit model to a variable-annuity-type model and eliminated the "30-and-out" early-retirement benefit for those not already qualified by year-end.
At the ratification meeting the union distributed summaries that did not list the elimination of the 30-and-out benefit; notice of that elimination was available only at an information table and via limited discussion among members.
The CBA passed by a 228–109 vote (a 119-vote margin). Nagel and others challenged the ratification, alleging the union concealed the 30-and-out change in breach of its duty of fair representation and raised LMRA/LRDA claims; the district court dismissed the LRDA claim, denied class certification, and granted summary judgment for the union on the DFR claim.
On appeal the Eighth Circuit affirmed summary judgment, holding Nagel failed to prove the required but-for causation because his evidence—nine identified members who said they would have voted no—was insufficient to overcome the 119-vote margin.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the union breached its duty of fair representation by concealing the elimination of the 30-and-out benefit	Nagel: union acted in bad faith by failing to disclose a material change that influenced members' ratification votes	Union: distribution and available information were adequate; any nondisclosure was not the but-for cause of ratification	Court assumed possible bad faith but affirmed for lack of causation evidence
Whether plaintiff proved but-for causation (that the ratification vote would have been different)	Nagel: at least nine members (and he later claimed up to 86) would have voted no if informed	Union: overwhelming vote margin and evidence that many affected members either knew or still voted yes show plaintiff cannot show the vote would have changed	Held for union: plaintiff failed to produce significantly probative evidence that disclosure would have changed outcome
Whether the district court abused its discretion denying class certification	Nagel: class relief is necessary to remedy the alleged widespread concealment	Union: class not appropriate given individualized reliance and causation issues	Court did not reach this issue because summary judgment was dispositive

Vaca v. Sipes, 386 U.S. 171 (1967) (establishes union duty of fair representation)
Marquez v. Screen Actors Guild, Inc., 525 U.S. 33 (1998) (defines DFR breach as arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad faith)
Anderson v. United Paperworkers Int’l Union, 641 F.2d 574 (8th Cir. 1981) (requires but-for causation and significantly probative evidence in fair-representation claims)
Acri v. Int’l Ass’n of Machinists & Aerospace Workers, 781 F.2d 1393 (9th Cir. 1986) (but-for standard for union vote causation)
Liberty Lobby, Inc. v. Anderson, 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (summary-judgment evidentiary standard; speculation insufficient)
Sim v. N.Y. Mailers’ Union No. 6, 166 F.3d 465 (2d Cir. 1999) (affirming dismissal where plaintiffs could only show a small number of possible changed votes against a large margin)
Chavez v. United Food & Com. Workers Int’l Union, 779 F.2d 1353 (8th Cir. 1985) (requires proof of reliance on union misrepresentations in some contexts)
Matousek v. MidAmerican Energy Co., 51 F.4th 274 (8th Cir. 2022) (distinguishing defined-benefit and variable-annuity pension structures)