Starla Rollins v. Community Hospital of San Bernardino
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 19317
| 9th Cir. | 2016Background
- Rollins, a long‑time Hospital employee and active union steward, negotiated a 2007 side Seniority Agreement with the Hospital (via Union rep Jill King) allowing her to "bump" back to a Ward Clerk if the MCH Billing Coordinator post were eliminated in a RIF.
- In 2008 the Hospital and SEIU‑UHW executed a new Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) that permitted alternative RIF arrangements by mutual agreement.
- In 2012 the Hospital implemented a reduction in force and signed an MOU with the Union listing eliminated positions (including MCH Billing Coordinator) but not expressly barring bumping or eliminating the Ward Clerk slot.
- Rollins was laid off in the 2012 RIF; the Union declined to enforce the 2007 Seniority Agreement, treated her claim as part of a general class grievance, and the class grievance was rejected.
- Rollins sued under § 301 (hybrid § 301/duty of fair representation claim) against the Hospital and the Union; settlement was reached with the Hospital and the suit continued against the Union.
- The district court granted summary judgment to the Union; the Ninth Circuit reversed, holding issues of material fact exist on (1) enforceability of the Seniority Agreement/CBA breach and (2) whether the Union breached its duty of fair representation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Enforceability of 2007 Seniority Agreement after 2008 CBA | Rollins: the side agreement remained valid and governs bumping if position was eliminated | Union: parol evidence bars the side agreement or the CBA superseded it | Court: Seniority Agreement does not conflict with CBA; CBA contemplates side agreements, so factual disputes remain for trial |
| Conflict between Seniority Agreement and 2012 MOU | Rollins: MOU triggered the SA (elimination of position) and does not negate bumping right | Union: MOU supersedes or conflicts with the SA | Held: MOU describes elimination but does not contradict SA; SA contemplates an MOU-triggered bump right |
| Whether Hospital breached a contract under § 301 | Rollins: Hospital breached the SA and thus a contract covered by § 185(a) | Union: No CBA breach because SA was invalid / not part of CBA | Held: SA is a contract between employer and labor org and may be part of collective bargaining relationship; factual disputes support finding a breach for trial |
| Whether Union breached its duty of fair representation | Rollins: Union acted arbitrarily/perfunctory — failed to investigate, lumped her with others, gave weak reasons | Union: exercised discretion; no breach of duty | Held: Triable issues exist — evidence shows perfunctory handling, inadequate investigation, and insufficient explanations such that a reasonable jury could find breach |
Key Cases Cited
- DelCostello v. Teamsters, 462 U.S. 151 (establishes hybrid § 301/duty of fair representation framework)
- Bliesner v. Comm’n Workers of Am., 464 F.3d 910 (describes § 301 hybrid suit procedure)
- Vaca v. Sipes, 386 U.S. 171 (defines breach of duty of fair representation standard)
- Peterson v. Kennedy, 771 F.2d 1244 (union must conduct minimal investigation; perfunctory handling is arbitrary)
- Tenorio v. NLRB, 680 F.2d 598 (minimal investigation requirement)
- Pace v. Honolulu Disposal Serv., 227 F.3d 1150 (parol evidence bars extrinsic evidence only when writing is unambiguous and inconsistent)
- Espinal v. Nw. Airlines, 90 F.3d 1452 (individual contract conflicting with CBA is superseded)
- Melanson v. United Air Lines, 931 F.2d 558 (same principle on supersession)
- Inlandboatmens Union v. Dutra Group, 279 F.3d 1075 (side agreements may be part of collective bargaining relationship)
- Beck v. United Food & Commercial Workers, 506 F.3d 874 (burden and standard for showing union breach of duty)