National Labor Relations Board v. Local 299, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America (1986)

The duty of fair representation “has primarily been associated with contract negotiation and the enforcement of that contract through grievance processing.” Id. (quoting NLRB v. Local 299, Int’l B’hood of Teamsters, 782 F.2d 46, 50 (6th Cir. 1986)) (internal quotation marks omitted).

See Local 299, 782 F.2d at 51 (“ ‘[I]t must be the duty of the representative organization “to serve the interests of all members without hostility or discrimination toward any....’””) (emphasis added) (quoting DelCostello v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, 462 U.S. 151 , 164 n. 14, 103 S.Ct. 2281 , 2290 n. 14, 76 L.Ed.2d 476 (1983) (quoting Vaca v. Sipes, 386 U.S. at 177 , 87 S.Ct. at 910 )).

This Court has explained that "the duty of fair representation is implicated only when an individual or group is treated differently by a union--either through discriminatory, bad faith, or arbitrary conduct--than another individual, group or the collective." NLRB v. Local 299, International Bhd. of Teamsters, 782 F.2d 46, 51-52 (6th Cir.1986).

Le’Mon v. NLRB, supra, 902 F.2d at 814-15 ; NLRB v. Local 299, 782 F.2d 46, 50-52 (6th Cir.1986).

Le'Mon v. NLRB, supra, 902 F.2d at 814-15 ; NLRB v. Local 299, 782 F.2d 46, 50-52 (6th Cir.1986). 11 We do not wish to sound starry-eyed about democracy.

For these reasons, the Sixth Circuit has declined “to extend the duty [of fair representation] to cover a situation ... where a member or group was not singled out for different treatment.” NLRB v. Local 299, Int’l Bhd. of Teamsters, 782 F.2d 46, 51 (6th Cir.1986).

This court has held that "the duty of fair representation is implicated only when an individual or group is treated differently by a union--either through discriminatory, bad faith or arbitrary conduct--than another individual, group or collective." N.L.R.B. v. Local 299, International Bhd. of Teamsters, 782 F.2d 46, 51-52 (6th Cir.1986) (emphasis added). 4 14 In dismissing this claim the district court came to the following conclusion: 15 In this case, plaintiffs have not a…

Universal Camera Corp. v. NLRB, 340 U.S. 474, 488 (1951); NLRB v. Local 299, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, 782 F.2d 46, 49 (6th Cir.1986). 3 We have thoroughly reviewed the record of the hearing and the decision of the Administrative Law Judge, and conclude that the ALJ's specific findings of credibility and findings of fact are supported by the record. 4 In addition to Robbins' testimony having been corroborated in some instances by other witnesses, and in others …

In NLRB v. Local 299, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, 782 F.2d 46, 50 (6th Cir.1986), we noted, analyzing Supreme Court and circuit precedent, that "[t]he duty of fair representation has primarily been associated with contract negotiation and the enforcement of that contract through grievance processing." (Footnotes omitted).

In NLRB v. Local 299, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, 782 F.2d 46, 50 (6th Cir.1986), we noted, analyzing Supreme Court and circuit precedent, that “[t]he duty of fair representation has primarily been associated with contract negotiation and the enforcement of that contract through grievance processing.” (Footnotes omitted).

As the Sixth Circuit emphasized in Kraftco, the duty of fair representation “was never intended to be a ‘catch all’ for undesirable union activity” but is implicated “only when an individual or group is treated differently by a union ... than another individual, group or the collective.” 799 F.2d at 1106 (quoting NLRB v. Local 299, Int’l Bhd. of Teamsters, 782 F.2d 46, 51-52 (6th Cir.1986)).

In this Circuit, duty of fair representation claims are further limited to a question of whether a union singles an individual or a group out for treatment different from another individual or group, in a manner that is “arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad faith.” NLRB v. Local 299, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, 782 F.2d 46, 51-52 (6th Cir.1986).

In a hybrid § 301 case, the plaintiff brings suit against both the union and the employer, alleging that the union breached its duty of fair representation and the employer breached the collective bargaining agreement. 11 .The court recognized that the breach of the duty of fair representation "primarily has been associated with contract negotiation and the enforcement of that contract through grievance processing.” Id. at 1106 (quoting NLRB v. Local 299, Int'l, Brotherhood …

National Labor Relations Board v. Local 299, International brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, 782 F.2d 46, 51-52 (6th Cir.1986).

See NLRB v. Teamsters, 782 F.2d at 50, 51

See National Labor Relations Board v. Local 299, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, 782 F.2d 46 (6th Cir.1986).