I caught this one before I signed off. It was obvious they weren't going to comment, because from a legal point of view they were not attempting to narrow what "good faith" requires in any way. Any act will simply be judged on its own merit to that standard including a ratified agreement that does not contain the ALPA Nicalou proposal. As to comments about Arbitrary or Discriminatory behavior, plaintiffs conceded those points because there was no case for them. While the trial no longer exists as a matter of law, I would assume any future claim will be base on "good faith" requirement(bad faith act) as the initial claim was made. Ok, now I really have to go but I am sure I will be able to jump right back in to the discussion in a month.
Ah yes there is that matter of Bad Faith. The thing is Bad Faith in the DFR concept is different from run of the mill contractual bad faith. It has been defined by the SCOUS and is quoted in the 9th in other cases.
Bad Faith
How does ALPA define it?
The Duty of Fair Representation was clarified in a US Supreme Court case in 1966 called Vaca v. Sipes, 386 U.S. 171 (1967). “A union breaches this duty only when its “conduct toward a member of the collective bargaining unit is arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad faith.” Vaca v. Sipes, 386 U.S. 171, 190, 87 S.Ct. 903, 916, 17 L.Ed.2d 842 (1967).”
In the Addington litigation the plaintiffs have abandoned the arbitrary or discriminatory focus of their claim and concentrated on bad faith. Bad faith is a broad term that can encompass a great deal of behavior. However the US Supreme Court has further clarified Bad Faith in another important case with regards to the DFR standard. In “HUMPHREY v. MOORE, 375 U.S. 335 (1964), the Supreme Court found a definition of Bad Faith. “Although the union at first advised the Dealers drivers that they had nothing to worry about but later supported the E & L employees before the Joint Conference Committee, there is no substantial evidence of fraud, deceitful action or dishonest conduct.”
Now, Let’s see how ALPA defines “Bad Faith” with regards to the DFR case filed by former TWA pilots.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
CAMDEN VICINAGE
(LEROY “BUD” BENSEL, et al. )
Plaintiffs,
(v. ) Civil Action No. 02-2917 (JEI)
ALLIED PILOTS ASSOCIATION,
et al. Motion Date: February 1, 2010
Defendants.
______________________________________________________________________
MEMORANDUM OF DEFENDANT,
AIR LINE PILOTS ASSOCIATION, INTERNATIONAL,
IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION
FOR CERTIFICATION OF THE ORDER OF DECEMBER 17, 2009,
DENYING SUMMARY JUDGMENT,
FOR INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. §1292(B)
_____________________________________________________________________
Dan Katz;
Counsel for Defendant Air Line Pilots Association, International
In an interlocutory appeal regarding this issue, ALPA would ask the Court of Appeals to determine that the same legal and evidentiary standard applies to claims of bad faith motivation in this situation as in all other situations facing a union. This is the standard adopted by the Supreme Court in Humphrey, 375 U.S. at 348, requiring “substantial evidence of fraud, deceitful action or dishonest conduct” in order to establish bad faith.
The Humphrey standard is an application of the well-settled rule that courts and juries are to treat union collective bargaining decisions with a high degree of deference—a requirement in turn born of the heavy responsibilities placed on unions as democratic membership organizations. Like ALPA, such organizations often have governing structures extending from the national level to the employee unit level, and their responsibilities require them to function, and to make a wide variety of decisions, often under great pressure, in complicated and difficult circumstances. Thus, as the Supreme Court has stressed, “Any substantive examination of a union’s performance . . . must be highly deferential, recognizing the wide latitude that negotiators need for the effective performance of their bargaining responsibilities.” Air Line Pilots Ass’n, Int’l v. O’Neill, 499 U.S. 65, 78 (1991) (emphasis added). As a result, “the relationship between the courts and labor unions is similar to that between the courts and the legislature.” Id.
This requirement of judicial deference applies to bad faith claims as well as other DFR claims…..
Bad Faith as defined by the US Supreme Court
= Substantial Evidence of Fraud, deceitful action or dishonest conduct.
Bad Faith as defined by the Honorable Neil Wake????
USAPA, ALPA and the US Supreme Court are in agreement on “Bad Faith”
We wonder how the 9th will rule on this issue?
Ooops!, they already have.
FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CHERYL ANN BECK, ü
Plaintiff-Appellee, No. 05-16414
v. ý D.C. No. UNITED FOOD AND COMMERCIAL CV-02-00495-EHC
WORKERS UNION, Local 99, OPINION
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Earl H. Carroll, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted
May 14, 2007—San Francisco, California
Filed November 1, 2007
Before: Cynthia Holcomb Hall, Diarmuid F. O’Scannlain,
and Sandra S. Ikuta, Circuit Judges.
Opinion by Judge Ikut
Although we cannot deem a union’s exercises of judgment to be wholly irrational and thus arbitrary, a union can still breach the duty of fair representation if it exercised its judgment in bad faith or in a discriminatory manner. Moore v. Bechtel Power Corp., 840 F.2d 634, 636 (9th Cir. 1988). To establish that the union’s exercise of judgment was discriminatory, a plaintiff must produce “substantial evidence of discrimination that is intentional, severe, and unrelated to legitimate union objectives.” Amalgamated Ass’n of St., Elec. Ry. & Motor Coach Employees of Am. v.Lockridge, 403 U.S.274, 301 (1971) (internal quotations omitted); see also Vaca, 386 U.S. at 177. To establish that theunion’s exercise of judgment was in bad faith, the plaintiff must show “substantial evidence of fraud, deceitful action or dishonest conduct.” Lockridge, 403 U.S. at 299.
Bad Faith has a very specific meaning in a DFR litigation and a plaintiff will have to prove that definition to prevail.
