McClain v. MacK Trucks, Inc.

Citations: 494 F. Supp. 114; 107 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2171; 1980 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11784Docket: Civ. A. 78-382

Court: District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania; June 12, 1980; Federal District Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Calvin McClain, representing a class of similarly situated individuals, filed a lawsuit against Mack Trucks, Inc., and the United Auto Workers (UAW) unions, claiming wrongful termination following a history of absences. McClain alleged that the unions, as exclusive bargaining representatives, failed to fairly represent him in contesting his dismissal, thereby breaching their statutory duty to serve the interests of employees without hostility or discrimination. The unions sought summary judgment, arguing that McClain's claims did not involve violations of the collective bargaining agreement, which is necessary for jurisdiction under the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947, specifically 29 U.S.C. § 185.

McClain contended that he would demonstrate at trial that the unions violated the collective bargaining agreement by not adequately representing him. The unions cited precedent, specifically *Adams v. Budd Co.*, which stated that federal jurisdiction under § 301(a) exists only for violations of contracts between employers and labor organizations. The court in that case emphasized that a claim must allege a breach of the collective bargaining agreement to establish jurisdiction. The unions referenced a similar case, reaffirming that without allegations of a collective bargaining agreement violation, jurisdiction under § 301(a) could not be maintained. The court ultimately indicated that the absence of such allegations would preclude jurisdiction in McClain's case as well.

Section 301(a) of the Labor Management Relations Act does not provide jurisdiction over all disputes between unions and employees, but rather only over suits alleging contract violations between employers and labor organizations. In the present case, the plaintiff has claimed a breach of the collective bargaining agreement, asserting that the unions inadequately represented him in his grievance, which implies a legal duty under that agreement. This claim, which includes allegations of racial discrimination by the union in fulfilling its contractual duties, is sufficient to support a Section 301(a) action.

However, the plaintiff's failure to exhaust internal union remedies prevents the court from addressing the merits of his claim. It is generally required that union members exhaust available internal remedies before filing suit. Although exceptions exist for extraordinary circumstances or futility, the plaintiff has not challenged the adequacy of the internal remedies provided by the union. Article 33 of the International Union Constitution outlines a comprehensive procedure for aggrieved members, including the ability to appeal to various union bodies while being represented by counsel and presenting evidence. Courts have consistently upheld the fairness of these internal procedures.

Plaintiff argued that the perceived futility of pursuing internal union remedies absolved him from the requirement to do so, citing hostility from union officers and delays in handling his grievance. He claimed inadequate preparation from union officials for hearings and alleged racial discrimination. However, the court emphasized that dissatisfaction with representation does not negate the union's obligation to act in good faith. Even if there were discriminatory actions by local union officials, the plaintiff was still required to exhaust the internal appeal process he contractually agreed to upon joining the union. The court noted that animosity from local union representatives cannot be assumed to extend to the international union, which provides a neutral forum for grievances. The plaintiff did not provide the international union an opportunity to address his concerns and failed to initiate the first step of the internal procedures. Accepting his excuses would undermine the contractual obligations and the federal policy favoring resolution of internal disputes through union mechanisms. Consequently, the union's motion for summary judgment was granted.

Article 33 outlines the procedural rights of members in the context of appeals regarding actions, decisions, or penalties imposed by subordinate bodies. Members who feel aggrieved may appeal to the International Executive Board (Art. 33.5). Further appeals from decisions made by the International Executive Board or an International Trial Committee can be taken to the Constitution Convention Appeals Committee of the International Union (Art. 33.8). Members have the right to legal representation of their choice during the appeals process (Art. 33.4), and they are allowed to present their case fully before any reviewing body, subject to the condition that this occurs before committees or panels designated for hearings. The excerpt references several legal cases that establish precedents relevant to these procedures and emphasizes that the United Auto Workers (UAW) has one of the most comprehensive internal appeals systems among American unions.