Charles Jones v. Daimlerchrysler Corporation

-1-
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION
File Name: 07a0022n.06
Filed: January 8, 2007
No. 06-3065
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
CHARLES JONES,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
DAIMLERCHRYSLER CORPORATION,
Defendant,
INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED
AUTOMOBILE, AEROSPACE AND
A G R I C U L T U R A L I M P L E M E N T
WORKERS OF AMERICA, UAW
(LOCAL 12),
Defendant-Appellee.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED
STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
Before: MARTIN, NORRIS and GIBBONS, Circuit Judges.
JULIA SMITH GIBBONS, Circuit Judge. Plaintiff-appellant Charles Jones appeals the
grant of summary judgment by the district court to defendant-appellee International Union, United
Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, UAW (Local 12) (the
“Union”) on his claim for breach of the duty of fair representation that is implied under the National
Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”). Jones complains that the Union failed to fairly represent him in
pursuing two grievances for violations of the Collective Bargaining Agreement (“CBA”) by
defendant DaimlerChrysler Corporation (the “Company”). Jones originally sued both the Union for

-- 1 of 3 --

The FMLA claim was disposed of in part by a grant of summary judgment to the Company1
and in part by settlement.
-2-
breach of its duty of fair representation and the Company for breach of the CBA and for a Family
and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”) violation. The district court granted summary judgment to the
Company on the claimed violation of the CBA and to the Union on the claimed breach of the duty1
of fair representation. Jones only appeals the grant of summary judgment to the Union and explicitly
does not appeal the district court’s decision to grant summary judgment to the Company.
Hybrid § 301/fair representation actions involve both a claim against the plaintiff’s employer
under § 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 185, alleging breach of the CBA,
and a claim against the union for breach of the duty of fair representation that is implied under the
NLRA. DelCostello v. Int’l Bhd. of Teamsters, 462 U.S. 151, 164-65 (1983). The two claims are
“inextricably interdependent.” Id. at 164. “[T]o recover against either the Company or the Union,
[the plaintiff] must show that the Company breached the Agreement and that the Union breached
its duty of fair representation. Unless [the plaintiff] demonstrates both violations, he cannot succeed
against either party.” Bagsby v. Lewis Bros., Inc., of Tenn., 820 F.2d 799, 801 (6th Cir. 1987)
(internal citation omitted). “The employee may, if he chooses, sue one defendant and not the other;
but the case he must prove is the same whether he sues one, the other, or both.” DelCostello, 462
U.S. at 165. It is of no consequence that Jones settled with the Company. See Garrison v. Cassens
Transp. Co., 334 F.3d 528, 538 n.8 (6th Cir. 2003). As Jones does not appeal the district court’s
grant of summary judgment to the Company, its conclusion that the Company did not violate the
CBA is dispositive, and Jones’s claim against the Union for breach of duty of fair representation
must fail.

-- 2 of 3 --

-3-
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor
of the Union.

-- 3 of 3 --