Plaintiff appealed a Federal District Court’s dismissal of his complaint against International Brotherhood of Teamsters and Teamsters Local Union No. 210 [collectively herein "Union"] and United Airlines, Inc. [United] for failure to state a claim pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).
Plaintiff had secured the Union’s representation to challenge his termination from his job as an airline technician for United Airlines but after advocating for his claim through the initial steps of the contract grievance procedure, Union concluded that Plaintiff's grievance was not meritorious and declined to pursue it further.
In his appeal before the U. S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit [Second Circuit], Plaintiff argued that the District Court erred in determining that he did not separately have the individual right to pursue that grievance in arbitration pursuant to the Railway Labor Act [RLA], 45 U.S.C. §151 et seq., after the Union declined to go beyond the initial steps it had taken on behalf of Plaintiff after deciding Plaintiff's grievance lacked merit.
Plaintiff had been employed by United for almost 25 years prior to his being fired for timekeeping violations on June 11, 2024. During his employment, Plaintiff was a member of IBT’s affiliated local union, Local 210. The IBT and Local 210 constitutions contain substantially similar language regarding the relationship between a Union member and the Union for purposes of employment grievances whereby the Union and its officers, business representatives, and agents may decline to process any grievance, complaint, difficulty, or dispute if in their reasonable judgment such grievance, complaint, or dispute lacks merit.
Under the terms of the relevant CBA, “[i]f the decision of the Company’s representative is not acceptable to the Union, the decision may be appealed by the Union to the System Board of Adjustment,” which is composed of two members designated by United and two members designated by the Union. After Plaintiff’s termination, the Union filed a grievance with United on his behalf pursuant to the relevant CBA’s grievance procedures. The grievance form, signed by Plaintiff states, “I hereby authorize the Union to settle my grievance as they deem proper, and I agree to accept and be bound by the settlement agreed to by the Union or its designees.”
The Union subsequently notified Plaintiff that after a “full legal review” of Plaintiff’s grievance, and “based on [the Union’s] attorney’s legal opinion that any grievance on behalf of [Plaintiff] will be denied and unlikely to be sustained in a board of arbitration,” the Union “declined to pursue this grievance.”
Plaintiff next filed the instant lawsuit, seeking;
(1) A declaratory judgment that, as an airline employee, he has the right to arbitrate his grievance as an individual, with or without the Union’s participation; and
2) An order compelling such arbitration before a single arbitrator.
In granting Unions’ motions to dismiss the District Court concluded that the RLA does not provide an individual right for airline employees to arbitrate a grievance and dismissed Plaintiff's complaint.
Union had contended that the RLA provides no such right and, even if it did, Plaintiff waived it by entrusting the Union to settle his grievance in this case. The Second Circuit said it agreed with the Union, also concluding that Plaintiff waived any such right to individually pursue his grievance in this case by ceding it to the Union.
In the words of the Second Circuit: "we conclude that [Plaintiff ceded his grievance authority to the Union through his membership in the Union and by signing the grievance form, thus waiving any right to pursue arbitration as an individual under the RLA (assuming, without deciding, that such a right exists)," noting that "the IBT and Local 210 constitutions plainly provide that the Union has the authority to decline to process member grievances it finds to be without merit".
The Second Circuit's decision observed that the "CBA interlocks with this provision, providing an appeal to the SBA through the Union and states that, if the SBA deadlocks, 'the Union may appeal the case to arbitration.'”
Further and "most concretely", the Second Circuit's decision pointed out that the Plaintiff "had signed grievance form, specific to his termination grievance, clearly accepts the Union’s authority here, vesting the Union with full authority to act on his behalf".
In particular, the Second Circuit noted that Plaintiff had agreed to “accept and be bound by” the Union’s exercise of its discretion in handling his grievance", and the Second Circuit said "we will enforce that agreement here".
ln the words of the Court, Plaintiff "waived that right in connection with his termination by ceding it to the Union and, thus, his complaint failed to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) ", affirming the judgment of the Federal District Court.
Click HERE to access the Second Circuit's decision posted on the Internet.