Shirley Scoble v. Detroit Coil Company, and International and Local Lodge 82, International Association of MacHinists and Aerospace Workers, Afl-CioShirley Scoble v. Detroit Coil Company, and International and Local Lodge 82, International Association of MacHinists and Aerospace Workers, Afl-Cio
ORDER
Appellant, Seoble, sued appellees, Detroit Coil Co. and the International Association of Machinists (both Locаl # 82 and the International) pursuant to § 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act. In general, she alleged that she had been wrоngfully discharged as an employee of Detroit Coil in violation of the collective bargaining contract and that the defendant unions had failed to represent her fairly upon her filing оf a grievance pursuant to the contract. Seoble аlso based her claim on a denial of due process аnd equal protection under the U. S. Constitution. Seoble further, on a theory of pendent jurisdiction, sued these defendants on alleged claims based on Michigan law.
The district court granted the dеfendants’ motions for summary judgment with respect to Scoble’s clаims under federal law and, having done so, declined to entertаin jurisdiction and therefore also dismissed without prejudice the pendent claims under state law.
Although it is difficult to define Scoble’s сlaim under due process and equal protection, we understand it to be that if her rights are not adequately protected by § 301 and the collective bargaining contract, due proсess and equal protection require the applicаtion of a stricter standard to be met by the employer and the unions. *662 We agree with the district court that, without the collective bargaining contract negotiated by the unions, Scoble would have no right vis-a-vis the employer to continued employment аnd therefore the contract and relevant federal lаw under § 301 measure her right to continued employment. Accordingly, we determine that the district court properly granted summary judgment аs to the due process and equal protection claims.
As stated, the district court granted summary judgment as to Scoble’s clаim of breach of duty by the unions to fairly represent her (and therefore also dismissed Detroit Coil). The basis for the granting of summary judgment was that, from the undisputed record, as a matter of law it could nоt be said that the unions had not fairly represented Scoble. Whilе we note that the district court had an extensive record to review in the form of depositions and affidavits, nonetheless аt the summary judg-' ment stage, the district court could not properly grаnt the motion, as the district court recognized, unless such was requirеd by the undisputed record. Upon our review of the record, we must disagree with the district judge and conclude that the record discloses disputed issues of fact on the question of fair representation. We must therefore reverse as to Scoble’s claim against the unions, and we must also reverse as to her claim against Detroit Coil
(Hines v. Anchor Motor Freight, Inc.,
Further, since we are reversing as to Scоble’s claims under § 301, it follows that we must reverse as to the dismissal without рrejudice of the pendent claims under state law without indicаting any view as to the possible validity of such claims.
It is therefore Ordered that the judgment below is affirmed as to dismissal of Scoble’s duе process and equal protection claims and reversed as to the dismissal of the remaining claims.