Trujillo v. American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees
A-1-CA-36373
| N.M. Ct. App. | Nov 21, 2017Background
- Plaintiff Johnny M. Trujillo sued his union (AFSCME Local 3973) alleging breach of the duty of fair representation before, during, and after a State Personnel Board hearing concerning his termination/grievance.
- The district court granted summary judgment for the union; Plaintiff appealed that dismissal.
- On appeal, Plaintiff argued the union failed to prepare adequately, declined to call requested witnesses, and failed to inform him when dispositive decisions were made or when to appeal.
- The Court of Appeals issued a proposed summary disposition to affirm and allowed the parties to respond; Plaintiff failed to supply the court with facts about the underlying termination/grievance.
- The record showed the union reasonably believed Plaintiff’s grievance lacked merit; the appellate court found no genuine dispute of material fact showing arbitrary, fraudulent, or bad-faith conduct by the union.
- The Court affirmed summary judgment for the union because Plaintiff did not demonstrate conduct rising to the level required for a breach of the duty of fair representation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether union breached duty of fair representation by poor preparation and witness decisions | Trujillo: union failed to prepare and omitted witnesses, undermining his grievance | AFSCME: it reasonably believed grievance lacked merit and acted within discretion | Held: No breach; union’s conduct was not arbitrary/bad-faith given belief grievance lacked merit |
| Whether union failed to inform Plaintiff of dispositive decisions and appeal deadlines | Trujillo: union did not notify him when key decisions were made or when to appeal | AFSCME: no duty breached where it reasonably assessed non-merit and no evidence of deliberate hostility | Held: No breach; Plaintiff produced no facts showing deliberate or hostile conduct |
| Whether Plaintiff needed to show his grievance was meritorious to prevail | Trujillo: argues meritorious grievance not strictly required | AFSCME: union’s reasonable belief of non-merit defeats claim of arbitrariness | Held: Meritorious grievance not strictly required but is highly relevant; absence of any showing of meritorious claim undermines Plaintiff’s position |
| Whether summary judgment was appropriate given the record submitted on appeal | Trujillo: disputed issues of fact preclude summary judgment | AFSCME: record shows no genuine issue of material fact | Held: Summary judgment affirmed; record (and Plaintiff’s omission of key facts) supports judgment for union |
Key Cases Cited
- Akins v. United Steel Workers of Am., 148 N.M. 442, 237 P.3d 744 (2010) (duty of fair representation requires arbitrary, fraudulent, or bad-faith conduct; mere negligence is insufficient)
- Adams v. United Steelworkers of Am., 97 N.M. 369, 640 P.2d 475 (1982) (breach requires deliberate, severely hostile, and irrational treatment; meritorious grievance not alone dispositive)
- Callahan v. N.M. Fed’n of Teachers-TVI, 147 N.M. 453, 224 P.3d 1258 (2010) (union’s failure to notify or secure approval before settling can support breach claim)
- Michaluk v. Burke, 105 N.M. 670, 735 P.2d 1176 (1987) (where appellate record is incomplete, trial court’s ruling is presumed supported by evidence)