770 F.3d 846
9th Cir.2014Background
- The United Brotherhood of Carpenters (Carpenters) represents many workers whose bargaining units are represented by the Metal Trades Department, AFL-CIO (Metal Trades); four named Carpenters members are plaintiffs.
- In 2008 the Building and Construction Trades Department ran a campaign to force the Carpenters to reaffiliate; the Metal Trades responded by dissolving a solidarity agreement and expelling the Carpenters from Metal Trades affiliation.
- After expulsion, Metal Trades allegedly removed Carpenters-affiliated employees from steward positions; one steward retained his post after joining an affiliate union.
- The Carpenters sued the Metal Trades alleging breach of the federal duty of fair representation for removing stewards based solely on union affiliation.
- The district court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim; the Ninth Circuit affirmed, addressing whether the duty of fair representation forbids appointing or removing stewards based on union affiliation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the duty of fair representation forbids a union from removing stewards because of their affiliation with a different union | Carpenters: removal of stewards based on Carpenters affiliation violates duty of fair representation | Metal Trades: selection/removal of stewards is an internal union decision necessary to ensure loyal, trusted representatives; affiliation-based choices do not necessarily breach the duty | Court: duty does not prevent appointing or removing stewards based on union affiliation; complaint fails as a matter of law |
| Whether discrimination on the basis of union affiliation, without more, constitutes a breach of the duty of fair representation | Carpenters: discrimination by affiliation alone suffices to state a claim | Metal Trades: adverse treatment based on affiliation, standing alone, does not establish unfair representation; context and additional facts (bad faith, arbitrary conduct, failure to follow policies) required | Court: affiliation-based discrimination, without more, is not per se a breach; plaintiff must allege facts showing unreasonable discrimination, bad faith, or arbitrariness |
Key Cases Cited
- Breininger v. Sheet Metal Workers Int’l Ass’n Local Union No. 6, 493 U.S. 67 (discusses exclusive representation and attendant responsibilities)
- Air Line Pilots Ass’n, Int’l v. O’Neill, 499 U.S. 65 (defines when union action is arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad faith)
- Vaca v. Sipes, 386 U.S. 171 (articulates duty of fair representation standard)
- Ford Motor Co. v. Huffman, 345 U.S. 330 (wide range of reasonableness for unions; arbitrariness standard)
- Retana v. Apt., Motel, Hotel & Elevator Operators Union, Local No. 11, 453 F.2d 1018 (9th Cir.) (internal union practices may trigger duty when they substantially impact employer-employee relationship)
- Bernard v. Air Line Pilots Ass’n, Int’l, 873 F.2d 213 (9th Cir.) (discrimination plus failure to follow policies supports breach finding)
- NLRB v. Int’l Bhd. of Boilermakers, 581 F.2d 473 (5th Cir.) (selection/removal of stewards treated as internal union affair)