Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Cecile Williams sued her union, United Electrical Radio and Machine Workers of America, UE Local 1018, claiming it breached its duty of fair representation in handling her grievance. According to the memorandum, in May 2019 Williams was given a formal improvement plan, and parents had complained about her. Union representative Stephen Cutty attended the May 2019 meeting at which the plan was presented, reviewed the charges, and asked Williams for information about the parental complaints. He did not contact the parents, and the memorandum says he gave a good-faith reason for that choice, though it does not spell the reason out.
The union's Executive Board then reviewed the charges and decided not to arbitrate. The union's membership reached the same result after Williams presented her own claim to it. The district court entered judgment for Williams and found the union's conduct arbitrary. It also identified aspects of the union representative's investigation that could have been more thorough and may have involved error. The union appealed, and the Ninth Circuit, deciding the case without oral argument, took jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The memorandum does not describe Williams's job or the underlying discipline beyond these points.
The Court’s Holding
The Ninth Circuit reviewed de novo the district court's application of law to the facts. It accepted the district court's factual findings unless clearly erroneous but independently decided whether those findings establish a breach of the duty of fair representation. The panel explained that a union breaches the duty when it fails, without substantial or rational reasons, to carry out a procedural or ministerial task, and that it must conduct at least a minimal investigation that permits an informed judgment. Once a union has exercised informed judgment, however, a plaintiff may prevail only by showing discriminatory conduct or bad faith. Unions receive wide discretion, and only conduct showing an egregious disregard for members' rights is a breach. Mere negligence, or an error in evaluating a grievance's merits, is not enough.
Applying those rules, the panel concluded that the union investigated enough to make an informed judgment requiring deference. Even accepting that the investigation could have been more thorough and may have involved error, the court held that the union's actions were not irrational or without a rational basis or explanation. Attending the meeting, reviewing the charges, asking Williams for information, and offering a good-faith reason for not contacting the parents sufficed. The court cited Evangelista, which found that reading the grievance and reviewing internal records and the collective bargaining agreement satisfied the duty. The Executive Board and the membership each decided not to arbitrate, and no evidence showed those decisions were discriminatory or in bad faith. Because it is for the union, not the courts, to decide whether and how to pursue a grievance, the district court erred in finding the conduct arbitrary.
The disposition is a single word: reversed. The memorandum does not discuss remand, further proceedings or any remedy, and it addresses no other claim or party. Because it is unpublished, it is not precedent except as allowed by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Key Takeaways
- A union must investigate enough to make an informed judgment about a grievance, but the investigation need not be perfect to satisfy the duty of fair representation.
- Once a union exercises informed judgment, a member can prevail only by showing discriminatory conduct or bad faith, or conduct that egregiously disregards members' rights.
- Hindsight criticism of a union's investigation, or even an error in evaluating the grievance, does not by itself make the union's conduct arbitrary.
- Here, attending the key meeting, reviewing the charges, asking the member for information and offering a good-faith reason for not contacting complainants supported deference to the union.
- The panel reversed the judgment for the member without discussing remand or further proceedings.
Why It Matters
The memorandum applies settled Ninth Circuit duty-of-fair-representation authority, including Peterson, Demetris and Tenorio. It shows that an appellate court may independently decide whether found facts amount to arbitrary conduct, even while accepting the district court's findings. Notably, the panel reversed even though it acknowledged that the investigation could have been more thorough and may have involved error.
Because the disposition is unpublished, it has no precedential weight beyond Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. It is best read as an illustration of the deference courts give union decisions about whether and how to pursue grievances. The result rests on the specific record the panel described and decides nothing beyond the union's conduct in this grievance.