Betty Sue Stanley v. Gen. Foods Corp., Maxwell House Div., Defendant-Third-Party v. Allied Food Workers Dist. Union 103, Third-Party, 508 F.2d 274 (3d Cir. 1975). · Go Syfert
Search
Betty Sue Stanley v. Gen. Foods Corp., Maxwell House Div., Defendant-Third-Party v. Allied Food Workers Dist. Union 103, Third-Party, 508 F.2d 274 (3d Cir. 1975). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
9 citation events (1 in the last 25 years) across 8 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Daughtry v. Army Fleet Support, LLC (almd, 2013-02-15)
Top citers, strongest first. 7 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited as authority (rule) Daughtry v. Army Fleet Support, LLC
M.D. Ala. · 2013 · confidence medium
Foods Corp., 508 F.2d 274, 275 (5th Cir.1975). 2 Daughtry has not shown facts sufficient to support a breach of duty in this regard.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Crawford v. AT & T & Communications Workers of America, Local 3250
N.D. Ga. · 2000 · confidence medium
McCollum v. Bolger, 794 F.2d 602, 612 (11th Cir.1986) (holding that a determination by the union that a grievance is without merit and will not be pursued is not a breach of the duty of fair representation); Stanley v. General Foods Corp., 508 F.2d 274, 275 (5th Cir.1975) (holding that “union met its obligation of fair representation by pursuing employee’s grievance to a point where further action would have been fruitless”); Turner v. Air Transport Dispatchers’ Ass’n, 468 F.2d 297, 300 (5th Cir.1972) (holding that “[a] union’s broad discretion in prosecuting grievance complaints…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Robert A. Bache, Jr. v. American Telephone and Telegraph, Etc., Jo B. Bankston v. American Telephone and Telegraph Co., Carolyn Carey v. American Telephone and Telegraph Information Systems, Inc., Defendants
5th Cir. · 1988 · confidence medium
We held in Stanley v. General Foods Corp., 508 F.2d 274, 275 (5th Cir.1975), that a union did not breach its duty of fair representation by failing to pursue a grievance that challenged a factory rule after that rule was upheld in another case.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Bache v. American Telephone & Telegraph
5th Cir. · 1988 · confidence medium
We held in Stanley v. General Foods Corp., 508 F.2d 274, 275 (5th Cir.1975), that a union did not breach its duty Of fair representation by failing to pursue a grievance that challenged a factory rule after that rule was upheld in another case.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Higdon v. UNITED STEELWORKERS OF AM., AFL-CIO-CLC
S.D. Ga. · 1982 · confidence medium
Vaca v. Sipes, 386 U.S. at 191-92 , 87 S.Ct. at 917 ; Christopher v. Safeway Stores, Inc., 644 F.2d 467, 472 (5th Cir. 1981); Stanley v. General Foods Corp., 508 F.2d 274, 275 (5th Cir. 1975); Lomax v. Armstrong Cork Co., 433 F.2d 1277, 1281 (5th Cir. 1970).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Norton v. Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority
Mass. · 1975 · confidence medium
See Vaca v. Sipes, 386 U.S. 171, 191-193 (1967); Stanley v. General Foods Corp., 508 F.2d 274, 275 (5th Cir. 1975); Carroll v. Brotherhood of R.R.
cited Cited "see, e.g." Butschek v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co.
S.D. Tex. · 1996 · signal: compare · confidence low
Compare Stanley v. General Foods Corp., 508 F.2d 274 (5th Cir.1975) (union has right to conclude would be fruitless and decline to arbitrate). .
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Betty Sue STANLEY Et Al., Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
GENERAL FOODS CORPORATION, MAXWELL HOUSE DIVISION, Defendant-Third-Party Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ALLIED FOOD WORKERS DISTRICT UNION 103 Et Al., Third-Party Defendants-Appellees
274.
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
Feb 17, 1975.
508 F.2d 274
1975 U.S. App. LEXIS 16074
W. Arthur Combs, Houston, Tex., for plaintiffs-appellants., J. M. Hopper, Houston, Tex., for General Foods., W. Wiley Doran, Houston, Tex., for Allied Food Workers Union.
Thornberry, Morgan, Roney.
Cited by 9 opinions  |  Published
[*275] PER CURIAM:

Betty Sue Stanley appeals from the judgment of the district court which found her union had not breached its duty of fair representation. We think the court was correct, and therefore, affirm.

The facts which gave rise to this dispute began in December, 1971, when Stanley was discharged for failure to comply with General Foods’ Absentee and Lateness procedure. The validity of that procedure, then undergoing arbitrator scrutiny, was upheld under the existing contract as a reasonable factory rule. Stanley challenged the fairness of the procedure, charging that it was administered unfairly. When the union refused to arbitrate her claim, she sued General Foods, requesting the court to compel arbitration. Her union, Allied Food Workers (AFL-CIO) was eventually drawn into the suit, and defended on the ground that it had not breached its duty of fair representation, the threshold issue below. We agree.

A review of the record shows that Stanley did not contest the correctness of the points assessed against her. Furthermore, her prior record showed three previous suspensions for absenteeism, falsification of records and negligence on the job. Although the union requested that she remain on the job, the company refused. The matter proceeded to a Step III grievance meeting but the company continued to refuse her reinstatement. When the validity of the absence procedure was eventually upheld in a separate arbitration proceeding, the union felt that a further pursuit of Stanley’s case would be meritless. Stanley’s contention that her discharge resulted from sex discrimination did not become clear until trial and is belied by the record below. During the grievance procedure itself, nothing concerning such discrimination was voiced and the union proceeded on its belief and Stanley’s initial assertion that the absentee procedure was unreasonable.

Under the circumstances, it appears the union met their obligation of fair representation by pursuing her grievance to a point where further action would have been fruitless. The union is not under an absolute duty to pursue a grievance through arbitration and a breach of duty is not established merely by proof that the underlying grievance was meritorious. Vaca v. Sipes, 386 U.S. 171, 87 S.Ct. 903, 17 L.Ed.2d 842 (1967); Turner v. Air Transport Dispatchers’ Association, 5 Cir., 1972, 468 F.2d 297, 299-300. We cannot say that the union’s conduct here was discriminatory or unfair.

Affirmed.