Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Clergeau v. Local 1181, Amalgamated Transit Union
Citation: 340 F. App'x 685Docket: No. 08-4374-cv
Court: Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit; July 14, 2009; Federal Appellate Court
Plaintiff Marc-Elie Clergeau filed suit against defendant Local 1181, Amalgamated Transit Union, AFL-CIO for breaching its duty of fair representation by not pursuing a grievance against his employer, Lonero Transit, Inc. Clergeau appeals the district court’s dismissal of his complaint under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c), which is reviewed de novo. Clergeau contends the district court erred in not recognizing a meritorious grievance under the 1997 collective bargaining agreement (CBA) related to his unlawful firing by United Transit, Inc. in 1999. However, the grievance arose in 2005 when Lonero hired him, thus the 2002 CBA, which superseded the 1997 CBA, governs the issues of seniority and salary. Clergeau argues there was no break in service affecting his grievance. He claims section V of the 2002 CBA is inapplicable because he was illegally fired and not offered any work afterward. While a question might arise regarding whether the gap between his firing in 1999 and the conclusion of his wrongful termination case in 2004 constituted a break in service, this is moot due to his independent job search in 2005, which included accepting non-union work before his unionized position with Lonero. Under the 2002 CBA, a “new employee” is defined as someone who has not followed the work with a unionized employer. The court found that Clergeau’s independent job search constituted a break in service, rendering him a new employee when he began working at Lonero. The district court’s interpretation of the CBA, following traditional contract rules, affirmed that unambiguous terms must be enforced as written. Clergeau’s argument regarding his failure to add his name to the Master Seniority List as a break in service was also rejected. Other arguments presented by Clergeau on appeal were found to lack merit. The judgment of the district court is therefore affirmed.