*3 party, we conclude that the court district MERRITT, NORRIS, Before: erred in granting summary judgment in GILMAN, Circuit Judges. favor of the defendants. We therefore REVERSE district court’s decision GILMAN, J., opinion delivered the and REMAND for further proceedings court, MERRITT, J., joined. which consistent opinion. with this NORRIS, 369), ALAN E. (p. J. delivered a separate dissenting opinion. I. BACKGROUND GILMAN, Judge. Circuit Between 1969 and Williams had submitting winning After bid for the been variously employed by Complete as renewal of General yard Motors’s and both haul-away a driver and yard as a haul-away work at plants two of GM’s worker. In he was working as a Flint, Michigan, Ryder Automotive Carrier haul-away at driver GM’s Buick plant. City Group, (“Ryder”) Inc. assigned the yard Complete employed over 200 workers plants work at both to Transport Support, year, performed some of whom (“TSI”) Inc. and the haul-away work at yard work at the Truck & plant, Bus an- plants both to Complete Transit, Auto Inc. facility other GM in Flint. During that (“Complete”). Both and Complete TSI are time, TSI employed only nine workers. wholly-owned Ryder. subsidiaries of The TSI was in charge yard of the at work union representing employees of both City plant. Buick subsidiaries then negotiated a rider to the Local 332 of the International Brother- national collective bargaining agreement. hood of represented Teamsters the em- According to the the employees of ployees of both Complete and TSI. How- (the Complete company had the previ- ard Molpus was their union representative. ous contract yard for work at one of the Molpus’s son was one of the nine TSI plants GM in question) could transfer to employees. perform yard TSI to work. Their seniori- In ty dates, however, GM announced that it was ac- would be “endtailed” cepting yard bids on all of its after the current employees. TSI work and haul-away work at both the City Buick Williams, Robert long-term a employee the Truck & plants. Ryder Bus submitted of Complete, grievance filed a with the bid, the winning thus continuing per- to Central-Southern Joint Arbitration Com- form the work that it had done under a (“CSJAC”), mittee dispute resolution prior contract with GM. Under the new body established the national collective contract, Ryder reassigned yard work bargaining agreement. (1) He protested at both plants to TSI and haul-away the reassignment Complete’s yard work work at the two plants to Complete. TSI, to provision. the endtail Af- ter grievance denied, his The unionized carhaul industry operates against filed suit the union as well under a master collective bargaining against (the Ryder, Complete, and TSI agreement, as the known National Master being latter three collectively referred Transporters to Automobile Agreement hereafter as “the (“NMATA”). Employers”). The dis- Complete Both and TSI are bid, TSI Ryder won GM After pro- specific Two NMATA. to signatories NMATA, to a rider negotiated in this at issue are visions pay new incentive-based a arranging deals which is Article first The appeal. performed work yard for se- schedule “terminal seniority, specifically provided rider also employees. to seniority applies TSI niority.” Terminal to transfer could Complete employ- date most recent employee’s time, any at work yard re- perform Article TSI terminal. specific at ment of oppor- window limited the usual merging without methods different fers two Transferring to do so. tunity method such One seniority lists. terminal compa- prior their retain transferring em- (whereby endtailing fringe purposes seniority dates ny the bottom at placed are ployees *4 seniority dates benefits, terminal their they retain but list, although seniority terminal nine current after the fringe be endtailed for seniority dates company their dovetailing employees. TSI is benefits), the and other seniority merged or more (whereby two ratified to and presented was This rider senior- terminal the original recognize lists dis- parties The employees. by the TSI to According employee). of each ity dates presented ever rider was the pute whether is the 5, dovetailing Article 2 of Section for ratification. employees Complete the to seniority “Terminal method: preferred although the Com- that Williams this by covered employees all rights they whether voted on employees plete Supple- unless the prevail shall Agreement to to transfer opportunity have the should Agree- of this provision other ments or to opportunity TSI, the they denied were contrary.” the to specifically provide ment seniority" their of the treatment vote on however, that states Article 8 of Section position The upon transfer. status solely as intended rules are “the above only had Complete that the is standards,” Employ- “the that general rider that of the part the vote on right to or Area the National ers, the Union they them, being whether “affected” mutual- may Committees Arbitration Joint their follow to opportunity have the should questions disposition such ly agree to argues that It to yard work TSI. former ap- is judgment, which, in their seniority Complete until unless the circumstances.” under propriate “affected” TSI, not they are to transfer at issue provision NMATA The second provision. endtail the Preservation is Work appeal the in this pre- rider August In (“WPA”), which deals Agreement by Article CSJAC, required as to sented The 1991-1995 work. reassignment rider. approved NMATA. CSJAC a new adding Article modified repre- reflect minutes provides pertinent provision This WPA. assured Molpus, sentative, Howard part as follows: ratified been rider had that the CSJAC it agrees Employer signatory [T]he members,” further without “affected work, oper- divert assign or ... will not specificity. performed presently services ations or to 1,1992, chose September On employ- to its assigned hereafter by, or of the rider’s Because to TSI. transfer entities, owned other business ees to new assigned a he was provision, endtail Em- signatory by controlled and/or him placed seniority date terminal subsidiaries, or affili- parent, ployer, its employees. existing TSI behind to signatory not Employer ates of month, sim- and two Agreement. Later that filed transferees Complete ilarly situated cor- parent the WPA Ryder signed reassignment protesting in- grievance, employers, signatory of the poration TSI, requirement yard work and TSI. cluding both they employment transfer TSI negotiation of provision, the endtail order to performing yard continue work presentation grievance. Williams’s previously performed by Complete em- Williams also claims that the district court ployees, and the seniority loss of terminal improperly dismissed his claims that Com- due to the The parties dispute transfer. plete and TSI part were of a single em- the extent to representa- which the union ployer, and that their agreements with the tive, Howard Molpus, assisted the trans- union violated NMATA.
ferees in presenting grievances. their Af- consideration,
ter
CSJAC
denied
II. ANALYSIS
Williams’s grievance
and upheld the
A. Standard of review
including the provision stating that
We review de novo the district court’s
seniority of transferring Complete employ-
grant of summary judgment. See Smith v.
ees be endtailed behind the existing TSI
Ameritech,
(6th
129 F.3d
Cir.
employees.
1997). Summary judgment
appropriate
is
subsequently
lawsuit,
filed this
when
genuine
there are no
issues of mate
(a)
claiming
Ryder,
Complete, and rial fact in dispute and
moving party
TSI should be
single
considered as a
em-
judgment
entitled to
aas matter of law.
*5
(b)
ployer,
the Employers breached Arti-
56(c).
See Fed.R.Civ.P.
In deciding a mo
NMATA,
(c)
cles 5 and 33 of
the union tion for summary judgment,
the court
breached
duty
its
of fair representation in must view the evidence and draw all rea
negotiating and ratifying
the TSI
as
sonable inferences in favor of the non-
well
in failing
to assist Williams in moving party. See Matsushita Elec. In
presenting
grievance.
his
The district
dus.
v.Co. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S.
court granted summary judgment for both
574, 587,
1348,
106 S.Ct.
365
(cid:127)
director, in which
relations
Ryder’s labor
in all contexts
represented
not care
Ryder did
stated
negotia McCune
including contract
activity,
union
employees were
Air whether
See
processing.
grievance
tion and
state-
Molpus’s
dovetailed.
O’Neill,
or
endtailed
U.S.
499
Ass’n, Int’l v.
Line Pilots
TSI, rath-
deposition
own
51 ment
his
L.Ed.2d
65, 77, 111 S.Ct.
pro-
endtail
Ryder, demanded
forth
than
set
er
(1991) (re-affirming the standard
who
regarding
to the confusion
in its
union
vision adds
it to the
extending
in Vaca
provision.
on this
in
may
fact insisted
be
There
capacity).
negotiating
union’s decision
however,
a
when
stances,
inwas
argues that
others,
over
members
favors some
initiating
for
responsible
party
fact
mem
union
all of the
total satisfaction
and,
Molpus’s
because
provision,
endtail
See Balowski
expected.
to be
is not
bers
Molpus had
TSI employee,
son
Cir.1967).
(6th
UAW,
F.2d
v.
An endtail
doing so.
motive
personal
shows
Furthermore,
employee
if an
even
job securi-
his son
provide
provision would
union breached
might
provision
a dovetail
ty, whereas
also
must
employee
representation,
For
layoff.
his son’s
resulted
have
“tainted
acts
the union’s
prove that
provision
the endtail
propose
the outcome
such that
procedure
grievance
represented em-
nine of its
favor
Un
by the
likely affected
than
was more
detriment
over
potential
to the
ployees
Roadway Ex
Dushaw
ion’s breach.”
if
200 others.
(6th Cir.
129, 132
Inc.,
F.3d
press,
Ry-
by either
not demanded
provision was
1995).
favoritism
TSI, then such
or
der
a breach of
TSI
breach
2. Williams’s
*6
of
Ford Mo-
See
representation.
duty of fair
which
incidents
cites numerous
Williams
73
345 U.S.
Huffman,
v.
tor Co.
of the union’s
a breach
claims constitute
he
(“[The
1048
681, 97 L.Ed.
S.Ct.
re-
particularly
representation,
of fair
duty
all mem-
represent
obligation to
union’s]
the rider
of
the
lating
negotiation
to
to
requires [it]
unit
appropriate
of an
bers
grievance.
of Williams’s
processing
the
the inter-
serve
effort to
an honest
make
record, we
the
review
on our
Based
members,
hos-
without
all of those
ests
genuine
raise
claims
these
that
conclude
any.”).
tility to
merit consider-
fact that
material
issues of
the union
jury.
a
that
by
Second,
ation
voted
in fact had
who
misrepresented
rider
the
negotiation
a. The
that
to CSJAC
stated
Molpus
rider.
the
the
ratified
had
employees
“affected”
the
two
made
the union
that
claims
that
impression
the
rider,
leaving
possibly
the
relating to
misrepresentations
material
and TSI
Complete
of both
employees
the
mis-
First,
that
he claims
rider.
to
According
same."
the
approved
had
end-
in fact initiated
who
represented
intentionally mis-
Williams,
statement
Williams,
to
According
provision.
tail
the Com-
believing that
into
led CSJAC
that
employees
Complete
told
Molpus
ratified
had
employees
plete
a condition
as
the endtail
demanded
Ryder
to
exists
dispute
material
a
that whereas
window
unrestricted
granting
done
in fact
had
employees
these
to whether
to transfer
Complete
allowed
misrep-
Molpus
that
alleges
again
He
so.
Dallas
employee,
Complete
Another
TSI.
personal
of his
because
vote
resented the
declaration
in his
stated
also
Whitinger,
responds
Ryder
his son.
favor
to bias
representation
made such
Molpus
that
“affect-
that
statement
Molpus’s
that
claims
employees.
Complete
rider re-
on
had voted
untrue,
ed”
was
representation
Molpus’s
employees.
to the TSI
McCune,
solely
ferred
of Albert
deposition
citing to
Moreover, Williams claims that
unit members. According
Ryder
to
NMATA,
TSI rider violated
union,
sacrificing
both the TSI employees and the
the seniority status of over
Complete employees received some bene-
employees in order to benefit nine TSI
namely the retention of seniority sta-
fit—
union,
employees. The
argues,
he
should
transfer,
tus
ability
and the
to
respective-
either
refused
negotiate
have
ly.
the rider
Moore,
See Humphrey
same,
or should have challenged the
(1964) (hold-
84 S.Ct.
(i) Williams claims the rider violat- tion justified given his understanding ed Article 5 of NMATA. Section company from representatives that Com- Article generally requires the dovetailing plete’s workers’ compensation rates were of seniority, whereas Section 8 thereof al- higher than TSI’s. Based on this under- lows for endtailing only upon agree- standing, he believed that a yard bid for union, ment of the the employer, and work Complete would be a competi- at CSJAC. Williams there was tive disadvantage to a bid made TSI. legitimate no reason for the union agree Employers’ discovery responses, how- to, propose, much less endtailing in this ever, revealed “Complete and TSI mentioned, case. previously As Molpus’s were self-insured employers for workers’ justification endtail, for the expla- and his compensation purposes [and,] ... [there- nation to the Complete employees, was fore, no workers’ compensation insurance Ryder either or TSI demanded this rates are involved.” Williams argues that provision. Ryder’s labor relations di- Molpus offered other legitimate no reason rector, however, otherwise, testified and for the union to support this work reas- stated that he knew of no other situation signment, again suggests Molpus which employees’ seniority status was end- failed to challenge the contractual violation tailed. he because in fact initiated the rider for *7 the benefit of his
(ii) son. Williams that contends the diversion of work from Complete to TSI violated b. The processing (the Section WPA), of 33 of which Williams’s grievance he precludes claims the transfer or reas- signment of work from one signatory em- “An action will not against lie a ployer another. to argues Williams that union for process failure to grievance a Molpus failed protest to either this diver- fraud, absent a showing of misrepresenta sion of work or tion, inform the Complete em- faith, bad dishonesty of purpose or ployees of the violation. union and gross such or mistake inaction as to imply Employers, the hand, on the other claim bad faith.” v. UAW, Balowski 372 F.2d that there was no (6th of Cir.1967). violation the WPA 834 In prove order to because provision was pre- breach, intended to a the complaint allege must more vent the transfer or reassignment work of than simply conclusory statements. “In to other companies signatories that are not particular plaintiffs must make a showing NMATA, to or to non-Teamster subsidiar- that the action or inaction of the [union] ies or owned by signatory controlled the representative complained of was motivat ” parent company. Ryder further asserts (internal ed by bad faith.... Id. at 835 that it supported the rider because it omitted). quotation marks Moreover, a in necessary order to competitively bid and union does not to process have grievance a retain yard the GM work for bargaining merit, that it deems lacks as long as it
367 re- satisfy the to was insufficient evidence faith. good in determination that makes intervening in the forth set Freight, quirements Motor v. Anchor See Whitten Air Line Pilots Cir.1975). decision (6th Supreme Court 1335, 1341 Inc., F.2d 521 O’Neill, 111 Ass’n, Int’l failed to the union that claims (1991), holding L.Ed.2d S.Ct. alleg- He grievance. his process properly negotiating- in its a union does “what that grievance the Molpus dealt with that es proof of absent actionable is not capacity advise manner, to failed “perfunctory” a discrimination, so or behavior faith, bad WPA, the violation potential the him of Ackley irrational.” as to be unreasonable copy with a him provide to neglected and II, 267. F.2d at pro- during grievance rider of the TSI that, con- also ceeding. Ackley, the facts In contrast to failed Molpus customary practice, to trary following evi presented has committee, to the grievance present jury, by a that, if found credible dence his to handle it to Williams rather left but finding a support Molpus argues that further He own case. discriminatory faith or with in bad acted believing into CSJAC intentionally misled requirements intent, satisfying the thereby ratified had employees Complete that the (1) seniority status forth O’Neill: set em- rider, the “affected” stating Article 5 endtailed, rarely evidenced rider, as- again and on the ployees voted (2) pro NMATA, endtailing was his in favor of bias Molpus’s personal serts union, by the not demanded posed at TSI. son like (3) decision was CSJAC’s Employers, argue union and the Ryder response, In by the misrepresentation upon a based ly hear- at the position neutral Molpus’s (4) approved had of who union had that Williams appropriate, ing was misrepresenta material union m'ade griev- present his full opportunity Ryder Complete to the tion him- that Williams They point out ances. (5) provision, endtail demanded had he knew deposition in his self stated employees over nine TSI rider favored could Molpus position of no other one employees, that Williams hearing, taken at have represen is the TSI provisions, of the NMATA was aware son. tative’s from information sought that he never the WPA. regarding genuine Molpus presented has Because Williams un- regarding fact of material issues properly summary judgment 3. Was representa- of its breach ion’s granted? de- many of his tion, because credibility, issues, a review determinations examining upon these In pend *8 in erred court opinion the district published that only other conclude circuit’s we this of judgment favor represen summary duty of fair of union’s involving granting endtail provision an context of union. tation UAW, 910 Ackley v. In
is instructive.
I”),
Cir.1990)
(6th
(‘Ackley
this
F.2d 1295
Employ-
by the
NMATA
Breach of
C.
the union breached
initially held that
court
ers
upon
based
representation
duty
fair
it
B.2.a.
in Part
set forth
previously
As
repre
hostility
those
toward
the union’s
vio-
that the rider
above,
argues
seniority status
whose
sented
(dealing
5 of
Article
un
lated'both
grant of
Upon its
was endtailed.
(Arti-
the WIPA
seniority rights), and
however,
rehear,
the same
motion
ion’s
that
NMATA).
contends
He thus
33
Ack
cle
See
opinion.
its earlier
vacated
panel
evidencing
Cir.1991)
addition
(6th
UAW,
948 F.2d
ley
duty
represen-
union’s
of the
II”).
held that
breach
The court
(“Ackley
tation, also
constitutes breach of
Single
contract
employer
D.
status
by
Employers.
further
that
district court erred in dismissing his claim
Williams’s claims on these issues
and
part
TSI are
of a sin
normally
would
be
foreclosed
CSJAC’s gle employer. Even though TSI volun
rulings adverse
position.
to his
gener
In
teered to
liability
assume
for the acts of
al, an arbitrator’s
binding
decision is
any and all of the Employers, Williams
long as it
rationally
is
drawn from the
submits that his single employer claim is
essence of the
still
collective
relevant.
In
bargaining agree
support of his position,
ment.
Williams argues
See Dallas
Ryder
created,
&
Mavis Forwarding
Co.,
merged, extinguished, and
Drivers,
reorganized
Inc. v. General
its
Local Union
carhaul
89,
subsidiaries with such
129,
(6th
frequency
No.
Cir.1992)
972 F.2d
as to establish that the only enduring enti
(holding that the arbitrators’ decision that
ty
Ryder
itself.
If such were indeed
a vehicle delivery company violated provi
case,
then there would necessarily be
sions of the collective bargaining agree
only one group of employees
only
one
ment was binding because it was rationally
seniority list. Consequently, an endtail
drawn from the essence of
agreement).
provision, which
require
would
two distinct
noted,
district
however,
court
that the
groups of employees,
be
impossible.
arbitration committee’s decision is not
points
out
although
a jury
binding if the union
duty
breached its
could find
provision
endtail
violat
fair representation in connection with the
ed Article 5 of NMATA without also find
arbitration proceeding. See Hines v. An
ing that Complete and TSI
part
were a
chor
Inc.,
Motor Freight,
a single employer, such a violation would
(1976)
96 S.Ct.
court will have to reconsider Williams’s support Williams’s allegation aof breach of against the Employers. NMATA, TSI’s offer to assume liability for omitted). Given punctuation and internal not render Employers does all of I the view exacting requirement, share Upon careful irrelevant. claim Williams’s not plaintiff has pre- has of the district court review, we conclude forward with sufficient evidence to avoid sum- come evidence sented sufficient duty summary judgment on his The district withstand mary judgment on this issue. v. dismissing representation his sin- of fair claim. Williams erred court therefore CIV.A.93-CV-40131-FL, of law. Molpus, claim as a matter No. gle employer (E.D.Mich. August WL 715455 union E. to exhaust internal Failure 1997).
remedies respectfully dissent. I union that Williams’s The reme to exhaust his internal union failure gener appeal. on
dies bars his claims grievant that a must ex requirement al remedies, union his or her internal haust however, if union is excused breaches Hines, representation. See duty
its
fair
(“The
un
UCATION, al., et Defen
III. CONCLUSION dants-Appellees. viewing of the evidence and After all 97-3082, Nos. 97-3104. in the drawing light inferences reasonable Appeals, Court of United States non-moving party, most favorable Sixth Circuit. genu- has raised we conclude Williams preclude ine fact that issues of material Argued March 1998. summary judgment against grant March 1999. Decided him. the deci- We therefore REVERSE court and REMAND sion of the district consistent with proceedings
for further this opinion. NORRIS, Judge,
ALAN E. Circuit dissenting. acknowledges, “the final majority
theAs may bargaining process of the product [of constitute evidence of breach only fairly it if can be representation] far a wide chai’acterized so outside wholly that it is range reasonableness arbitrary.” Air Line Pilots irrational or O’Neill, 65, 78, Ass’n, Int’l v. *10 (1991) (citations 1127, 113 L.Ed.2d S.Ct.