491 F. App'x 543
6th Cir.2012Background
- Plaintiffs Sam Spicer and Nick Wilson worked as Ford Batavia, Ohio technicians from 2004 to 2008 and accepted buyouts in 2007
- They were rehired in April 2007 and alleged their continued work gave them seniority rights under the CBA
- Ford/Batavia classified plaintiffs as Super Temporary Part Time Employees (Super TPTs) upon April 2007 rehire, denying seniority
- In February 2008 they and others filed grievances claiming CBA seniority/recall rights were breached
- Union assisted grievances until January 2009, when the Union withdrew them “without Precedence or Prejudice”
- Plaintiffs appealed to the IEB, which held an evidentiary hearing and ruled against them in January 2010; they filed suit in July 2010 and the district court dismissed for failure to exhaust internal union remedies
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether exhaustion of internal union remedies was required | Spicer and Wilson argued exhaustion was required but could be excused | Union argued exhaustion applied and no futile or other exception shown | Exhaustion required; no excuse shown |
| Whether Clayton exceptions justify excusing exhaustion | Plaintiffs claim hostility, inadequacy, or delay existed | No substantial hostility, inadequacy, or delay shown by union remedies | No Clayton exception established; exhaustion not excused |
| Whether failure to exhaust bars the union claim and related hybrid claims against Ford/Batavia | Hybrid claim against Ford/Batavia presumed viable if union claim exhausted | Because exhaustion failed, whole suit barred | Exhaustion failure bars suit and related hybrid claims |
Key Cases Cited
- Chapman v. UAW Local 1005, 670 F.3d 677 (6th Cir. 2012) (en banc exhaustion rule for internal union remedies)
- Clayton v. Int’l Union, 451 U.S. 679 (U.S. 1981) (exhaustion required unless exceptions apply)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (pleading standards; plausibility review)
- LaPerriere v. UAW, 348 F.3d 127 (6th Cir. 2003) (hostility must exist at every level of appeals)
- Glover v. St. Louis-San Francisco Ry. Co., 393 U.S. 324 (U.S. 1969) (exhaustion futile when union officials discriminate or act against employees)
- Rabalais v. Dresser Indus., Inc., 566 F.2d 518 (5th Cir. 1978) (exhaustion of internal remedies under a union/contract context)
- Parker v. Local 413, Int’l Bhd. of Teamsters, 501 F. Supp. 440 (S.D.Ohio 1980) (exhaustion of internal union remedies distinguished from CBA remedies)