Rickey A. Bechtel v. DANIEL A. VIRTUE, Business Agent of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters

*Honorable R. Barclay Surrick, U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania, sitting by designation.
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 02-3195
___________
RICKEY A. BECHTEL,
Appellant
v.
DANIEL A. VIRTUE, Business Agent of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters;
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAM STERS; LOCAL 776,
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS; and ABF FREIGHT
SYSTEM, INCORPORATED
___________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
District Court Judge: The Honorable Sylvia H. Rambo
(D.C. Civil No. 01-cv-00789)
___________
Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a)
July 22, 2003
Before: ALITO and FUENTES, Circuit Judges,
and SURRICK,* District Judge.
(Opinion Filed: July 30, 2003)

-- 1 of 3 --

2
________________________
OPINION OF THE COURT
________________________
FUENTES, Circuit Judge:
Plaintiff Rickey Bechtel appeals the District Court’s grant of summary judgment to
defendants Daniel Virtue, International Brotherhood of Teamsters (“IBT”), Local 776, and
ABF Freight System (“ABF”). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
The standard of review applicable to an order granting summary judgment is plenary.
Curley v. Klem, 298 F.3d 271, 276-77 (3d Cir. 2002). We apply the same test employed by
a district court under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(c). See Kelley v. TYK Refractories
Co., 860 F.2d 1188, 1192 (3d Cir. 1988). Accordingly, the District Court’s grant of summary
judgment in favor of the defendants was proper only if it appears that “there is no genuine
issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter
of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). In evaluating the evidence, we are required “to view the
inferences to be drawn from the underlying facts in the light most favorable to the party
opposing the motion.” Bartnicki v. Vopper, 200 F.3d 109, 114 (3d Cir. 1999).
Bechtel contends in this hybrid Del Costello suit that defendants Virtue, IBT, and
Local 776 breached their duty of fair representation, and that defendant ABF breached the
collective bargaining agreement. Virtue and IBT moved for summary judgment on the
ground that they are not proper parties for the breach of duty claim. Virtue, IBT, and Local

-- 2 of 3 --

3
776 moved for summary judgment on the ground that they did not breach their duty of fair
representation. The District Court determined that no duty of fair representation had been
breached by any defendant, and thus did not address the proper party issue. (App., p. 15).
The District Court then concluded that, because a breach of the duty of fair representation
is a necessary condition precedent, Bechtel could not state a claim for breach of the collective
bargaining agreement against ABF. Id. at 17 (citing Del Costello v. International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, 462 U.S. 151, 164-65 (1983); Albright v. Virtue, 273 F.3d 564,
576 (3d Cir. 2001)). Accordingly, the District Court granted summary judgment to the
defendants.
We have carefully considered Bechtel’s arguments in this appeal and find that they
lack merit. For the reasons stated in the District Court’s well-reasoned and thorough opinion,
we find that summary judgment was properly granted to the defendants. We therefore affirm.
_____________________________
TO THE CLERK OF THE COURT:
Kindly file the foregoing Opinion.
/s/ Julio M. Fuentes
Circuit Judge

-- 3 of 3 --