Christopher Pease, Vince Viti, Willard Berge, and Michael Gear v. Production Workers Union of Chicago and Vicinity Local 707 Randall Industries, Inc. And Randall Rents of Indiana, Inc.

Citation: 386 F.3d 819Docket: 04-1928

Court: Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit; November 8, 2004; Federal Appellate Court

Combined Opinion SummaryCombined Opinion Original

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Local 707 of the Production Workers Union and Local 150 of the Operating Engineers Union have been in a protracted dispute over representation rights for truck drivers and related workers at Randall Industries. Workers have voted twice in favor of Local 707, which has been certified by the NLRB as their representative, despite Local 150's claims of unfair labor practices by the employer. Local 150 has been ordered to cease threatening Local 707's supporters, and its contempt for this order has been enforced by the court. 

In this litigation, four employees, represented by Local 150's counsel, allege that Randall did not honor its collective bargaining agreement with Local 707. To prevail, they must demonstrate that Local 707 breached its duty to represent them, as established in DelCostello v. Teamsters and Vaca v. Sipes. The district judge dismissed or granted summary judgment on principal claims for three employees, with only one claim from Willard Berge going to a jury, which ultimately favored the defendants after rejecting most claims.

The appeal from the four plaintiffs reveals that Michael Gear's claim has been abandoned due to lack of argument in the joint brief, while Pease and Viti do not contest jury-rejected theories, focusing instead on claims resolved pre-trial. Additionally, Pease is implicated in bankruptcy fraud, having failed to disclose this lawsuit in his bankruptcy filings. Although the district judge dismissed Randall's assertion that only the bankruptcy trustee could pursue this claim, Randall has revived this argument on appeal, which Pease attempts to sidestep by claiming Randall's lack of cross-appeal limits the issue, a stance the court rejects. A prevailing party can defend their judgment on any grounds preserved in the district court.

A debtor in bankruptcy may face limitations in pursuing high-stakes claims concealed from creditors. In Morlan v. Universal Guaranty Life Insurance Co., it was established that claims abandoned by a trustee revert to the debtor unless rescinded due to concealment. Conversely, Leon v. Comcar Industries, Inc. states that employees who conceal substantial claims cannot pursue them during or after bankruptcy. In Pease's case, his claim belongs to the creditors, represented by the trustee, who has chosen not to pursue the litigation or formally abandon it. Pease forfeited the opportunity to argue abandonment and had a weak claim, as his discharge was contested in arbitration due to misrepresentation about his driver's license.

Viti, laid off as the most junior employee, was subject to the collective bargaining agreement's "last hired, first fired" rule, which was upheld despite questions about his probationary status. Local 150's continued support for Viti and Pease indicates the litigation may be vexatious.

Berge's case involved several theories, with the jury ruling in his favor on the claim that Randall violated the collective bargaining agreement by laying him off to favor Roy Walker, who had seniority but had been in a different role. Berge argued that Walker lost his seniority upon transferring jobs, while Randall and Local 707 contended that internal transfers did not affect seniority rights. Evidence presented to the jury suggested Local 707 exhibited hostility towards Berge and had a prior understanding with Randall regarding seniority retention for transferred employees. This led to a judgment in favor of the defendants, as the district judge deemed the evidence undisputed.

Berge and Local 150 argue that the jury could disregard the sole witness's unrecorded testimony regarding the understanding of seniority rights. Berge claims that if the jury disbelieves this testimony, it may conclude he has superior rights due to his eight months of seniority compared to Walker's lack of seniority. However, while juries can reject testimony, this does not equate to having contrary evidence, as established in Krist v. Eli Lilly, Co. The absence of another witness leaves a gap in the evidence, making it unclear whether the claim is true or false. The burden of persuasion falls on the party making the claim. 

Analyzing the situation without the disputed testimony shows that Berge, as the plaintiff, still faces the risk of non-persuasion. The collective bargaining agreement does not clarify how internal transfers affect seniority, implying that unless explicitly stated otherwise, seniority is retained. Consequently, Local 707 cannot be seen as having violated its duty of fair representation by supporting Walker's retention of seniority. Unions typically defend seniority systems, and Local 707's actions align with expected behavior; had they supported Berge, Walker could have claimed a violation of duty. 

Labor unions are meant to resolve workplace conflicts through seniority and negotiation, as federal law encourages such resolutions over litigation. Disputes should be settled through discussions or arbitration rather than court, reinforcing that a hybrid contract/duty of fair representation suit is unlikely to succeed unless the worker can demonstrate that the union has abandoned its responsibilities.

Local 707 demonstrated support for its role, opposing Local 150's attempts to displace it, which does not equate to abandoning its members. Unions often protect even political opponents out of duty or strategic interests. Local 707 arbitrated the Pease discharge despite its weak claim, indicating a commitment to fair representation. There is no evidence that Local 707 acted unjustly toward Berge compared to other members, and no claims were made that it argued against seniority for a Local 150 supporter under similar circumstances. The case lacked sufficient grounds for trial, as a reasonable jury could not find that Local 707 failed to provide Berge with fair representation. Mistakes in interpreting collective bargaining agreements do not constitute a breach of duty. Consequently, the plaintiffs' other arguments were deemed unnecessary for discussion. The decision was affirmed.