Narrative Opinion Summary
This case involves a dispute between a nontenured assistant professor and the Mount Wachusett Community College Faculty Association over the handling of employment grievances under a collective bargaining agreement. The plaintiff alleged inadequate representation and bad faith by the Association in dealing with grievances from the academic years 1974 and 1975, including issues of evaluation and alleged reprisals by the College. The Association, acting as the exclusive bargaining agent, assisted the professor through the grievance process. Despite securing legal representation for arbitration, the arbitrator found procedural unfairness by the College but did not award reinstatement or back pay, citing various reasons. The Association appealed the jury's award in favor of the plaintiff, arguing the trial court erred in denying motions for a directed verdict and judgment notwithstanding the verdict. The court evaluated whether the Association breached its duty of fair representation by acting arbitrarily or in bad faith, ultimately affirming the jury's decision. The case highlights the complexities of union representation duties and the standards for evaluating fair representation compliance, with implications for the statutory remedies available to employees.
Legal Issues Addressed
Arbitration and Remediessubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The arbitrator found procedural unfairness by the College but deemed reinstatement and back pay inappropriate, considering factors like recent implementation of the evaluation procedure and the Association's delay.
Reasoning: The arbitrator concluded that the College failed to fairly implement the evaluation procedure stipulated in the collective bargaining agreement. However, despite Mrs. Trinque and the Association's request for reinstatement with back pay, the arbitrator deemed such remedies inappropriate.
Discrimination and Union Representationsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The jury examined potential discriminatory conduct by the Association, particularly in how Trinque's grievances were handled compared to tenured professors.
Reasoning: The Association's handling of grievances, particularly the different treatment of Mrs. Trinque's case compared to tenured professors, raised questions about possible discrimination and bad faith in her representation.
Duty of Fair Representation by Unionssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court examined whether the Association acted in bad faith, arbitrarily, or discriminatorily in handling Trinque's grievances under the collective bargaining agreement.
Reasoning: The text references legal precedents regarding a union's duty of fair representation, highlighting that a breach occurs only if the union acts arbitrarily, discriminatorily, or in bad faith.
Evaluation of Union Conductsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court found no substantial evidence of arbitrary or bad faith conduct by the Association in representing Trinque, noting that securing attorney Mr. Egan for arbitration demonstrated cooperative representation.
Reasoning: Applying this principle to Mrs. Trinque's case, evidence indicated that the Association provided cooperative representation, securing attorney Mr. Egan at no cost for her arbitration regarding a 1974 grievance.
Grievance Procedure under Collective Bargaining Agreementsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Trinque's grievances were processed through the multi-step procedure outlined in the collective bargaining agreement, but the Association's delay and alleged inadequate preparation raised concerns about their representation.
Reasoning: The collective bargaining agreement outlined a five-step grievance procedure, culminating in arbitration if unresolved.