Dist. Ct. erred in granting defendants-union’s and employer’s motions for summary judgment in plaintiff-employee’s section 301 of LMRA action alleging that union breached its duty of fair representation and employer breached terms of collective bargaining agreement (CBA), when employer fired plaintiff for taking item from its store without paying for it, and where union refused to pursue plaintiff’s grievance regarding her termination. Although employees are generally bound by union’s decision not to pursue grievance, plaintiff presented evidence that union’s decision not to do so was arbitrary and discriminatory, where: (1) union failed to abide by grievance policy set forth in CBA that mandated conference between plaintiff and store’s director to discuss her discipline; (2) record showed that union had previously pursued grievance of co-worker who similarly alleged that taking of store item without paying for it was unintentional; and (3) record showed likelihood that plaintiff would have prevailed in grievance where issue of intent was addressed in prior arbitration of grievance, and where plaintiff presented corroborative evidence that family emergency existed at time she attempted to leave store. Ct. further observed that jury could conclude that employer’s misappropriation policy was unreasonable where: (1) contrary to employer’s claim, written policy contained no language indicating that employee’s intent was irrelevant; and (2) employer sought to discover employee’s intent in disciplinary form addressing misappropriation charge.
Federal 7th Circuit Court
Civil Court
Labor Law