Price v. Unite Here Local 25
883 F. Supp. 2d 146
D.D.C.2012Background
- Price, pro se, sues the Jefferson Hotel and related defendants under §301 LMRA for alleged breach of CBA.
- Case 11 Civ. 784 is consolidated with 10 Civ. 1865, regarding the same hybrid §301/fair representation claim.
- Price was employed as a cook from July 20, 2009 to November 6, 2009 during hotel renovation and reopening.
- A Letter of Agreement created a 90-day probationary period post-opening, with grievance access limited to returning employees.
- Plaintiff was terminated on November 6, 2009, sixty-seven days after reopening, within the probationary period.
- The Union filed a grievance but did not pursue further steps because plaintiff was within probation and had no grievance rights.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the Union breach its duty of fair representation? | Price contends the Union failed to adequately pursue his grievance. | Union argues no breach since plaintiff was a probationary employee with no grievance access. | No breach; probationary status foreclosed grievance access and side letter controls. |
| Is the Letter of Agreement valid and controlling over the master CBA? | Letter conflicts with the master CBA and should not govern. | Side letter governs and may supplement the CBA. | Letter of Agreement governs; side letters control despite master CBA. |
| Was Price a probationary employee at dismissal? | Plaintiff disputes probationary status and union duties. | Documents show a 90-day probationary period after reopening; plaintiff dismissed within it. | Yes, Price was within the 90-day probationary period at dismissal. |
| Can Price state a claim for breach of the CBA against the Jefferson? | Discharge violated contractual protections. | Probationary status removes contractual protections against dismissal. | No contractual claim; probationary employees have no grievance rights under the CBA. |
| Should Price's motion to amend be granted? | Amend to add unfair labor practices and wrongful discharge claims. | Amendment would be futile and seeks to avoid disposition on summary judgment. | Denied; amendment would be futile and would not withstand dismissal. |
Key Cases Cited
- DelCostello v. Int'l Bhd. of Teamsters, 462 U.S. 151 (1983) (hybrid §301/fair representation claim requires showing for both union and employer)
- Vaca v. Sipes, 386 U.S. 171 (1967) (unions owe a duty to fairly represent covered employees)
- Diaz v. Int'l Longshore and Warehouse Union, Local 13, 474 F.3d 1202 (9th Cir. 2007) (union not liable for futile or meritless grievances)
- Cruz v. Local Union No. 3 of the Int'l Bhd. of Elec. Workers, 34 F.3d 1148 (2d Cir. 1994) (non-meritless failures to pursue grievances not per se breach)
- Brown v. Gino Morena Enters., 44 F. Supp. 2d 41 (D.D.C. 1999) (probationary terms within contracts admissible as reasonable)
- Traffas v. Cessna Aircraft Co., 62 Fed. App’x 891 (10th Cir. 2003) (unions may negotiate probationary provisions)
- Skillsky v. Lucky Stores, Inc., 893 F.2d 1088 (9th Cir. 1990) (probationary treatment not automatically a breach of duty)
- Van Leeuwen v. U.S. Postal Serv., 628 F.2d 1093 (8th Cir. 1980) (broad discretion to unions in negotiating agreements)
- Am. Postal Workers Union, AFL-CIO v. U.S. Postal Serv., 940 F.2d 704 (D.C. Cir. 1991) (probationary employees may lack contractual protections)
- Sanders v. Wash. Metro. Area Transit Auth., 819 F.2d 1151 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (probationary employees terminable at will, no contractual claim)