Opinion
Case No. 1:03CV53DAK.
December 13, 2004
ORDER
This matter is before the court on Defendants' Motion to Dismiss or Alternatively for Summary Judgment. The court held a hearing on the motion on December 10, 2004. At the hearing, Plaintiff was represented by Randall G. Phillips, and Defendant was represented by Carlie Christensen. The court took the matter under advisement. The court has considered carefully the memoranda and other materials submitted by the parties, as well as the law and facts relating to the motion. Now being fully advised, the court renders the following Memorandum Decision and Order.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff brought this action to enforce an arbitration award granted on her behalf against the United States Postal Service ("USPS"). Plaintiff was a rural mail carrier for the USPS. Plaintiff was a member of a collective bargaining unit of the National Rural Letter Carriers' Association ("the Union"). The Collective Bargaining Agreement ("CBA") between the Union and the USPS established a four-step grievance procedure for resolving disputes related to wages, hours, and conditions of employment.
On October 10, 2001, the USPS issued a Notice of Removal to Plaintiff alleging that she failed to safely operate her motor vehicle and failed to report an accident. The Union filed a grievance on Plaintiff's behalf challenging her proposed removal. The grievance was heard before a regular arbitration panel. The Arbitrator found that the USPS did not carry its burden to show that there was just cause for removal. The Arbitrator ordered that Plaintiff be reinstated and made whole for all lost wages, benefits, and seniority.
On November 14, 2002, Frank Taylor, the Labor Relations Specialist for the USPS, wrote to Plaintiff to advise her that her back pay award would be based upon an evaluation of her route and the contractual wage increases for the relevant time period. He further advised her that her relief day pay and the equipment maintenance allowance would not be paid. He also forwarded a copy of the Back Pay Decision/Settlement Worksheet with the letter for Plaintiff's signature.
On December 26, 2002, Plaintiff's counsel responded to the USPS and disputed the amount of back pay and other payments proposed by the USPS in Mr. Taylor's letter. On January 2, 2003, Mr. Taylor responded, advising that the back pay amount was not negotiable and that he could not process Plaintiff's back pay claim without Plaintiff's signature on the Back Pay Decision/Settlement Worksheet. Mr. Taylor also advised that the Union was the only entity authorized to represent Plaintiff on her back pay issue and if she disputed the amount, she should consult the Union and file a grievance if necessary.
Plaintiff did not sign or return the worksheet nor did she contact the Union concerning her dispute over the back pay amount. Therefore, a grievance was never filed. Instead, Plaintiff contacted the arbitrator about the dispute and he responded in a letter to Plaintiff stating that she needed to "pursue [her] claim with the parties upon the advice of legal counsel." The letter also stated that "[b]y copy of this letter I am advising the advocates in the original case of your request and my response. Please take the matter up with them as further ex parte communications with my office is not proper." There is no evidence in the record that Plaintiff took any action to follow up with the Union on the back pay dispute.
Plaintiff's Amended Complaint alleges that the USPS refused to make her whole pursuant to the Arbitration Award and its actions were a breach of the CBA. Plaintiff also alleges that the Union breached its statutory duty of fair representation in that its conduct toward Plaintiff was arbitrary, discriminatory, and in bad faith.
DISCUSSION
The USPS moves to dismiss this case arguing that Plaintiff failed to exhaust her remedies under the CBA and Plaintiff lacks standing to enforce the arbitration award because she was not a party to the arbitration. Plaintiff argues that the USPS' motion is premature and this court should allow discovery before ruling on the motion. However, Plaintiff mentions only discovery as to facts relating to the back pay dispute, not the exhaustion and standing issues in the present motions. The court finds that the USPS' motion is not premature and there are no facts that must be discovered before these motions can be heard.
A. Exhaustion of CBA Remedies
Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. § 1208(b), district courts have jurisdiction over "suits for violations of contracts between the Postal Service and a labor organization representing Postal Service employees." This provision has been construed to confer jurisdiction on the district courts for suits enforcing arbitration awards. American Postal Workers Union, AFL-CIO v. United States Postal Service, 827 F. Supp. 836, 838 (D.D.C. 1993).
An aggrieved postal employee must exhaust any exclusive grievance and arbitration procedures created in a CBA prior to bringing suit against an employer. Kaiser v. United States Postal Service, 908 F.2d 47, 49 (6th Cir. 1990). This rule also applies in an action seeking to enforce an arbitration award. Suarez v. United States Postal Service, 178 F. Supp. 2d 69 (D.P.R. 2001); United Food and Commercial Workers, Local Union No. 7R v. Safeway Stores, Inc., 889 F.2d 940, 945 (10th Cir. 1989) (requiring Plaintiff to exhaust grievance procedures under CBA prior to seeking confirmation and enforcement of arbitrator's award under section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act.).
In Suarez, the plaintiff was a letter carrier who filed suit to enforce an arbitration decision awarding him, among other things, reinstatement and back pay because he challenged the method used by the USPS to calculate his back pay. The district court found that the arbitration clause in the CBA was broad and required the plaintiff to bring a grievance and arbitrate his dispute regarding the calculation method used by the USPS to determine his back pay. Therefore, the court determined that Suarez had not exhausted the grievance procedures available under the collective bargaining agreement.
This court finds Suarez directly on point and instructive in this case. The dispute regarding back pay falls within the definition of a grievance as set forth in the CBA. Therefore, Plaintiff should have filed a grievance and exhausted her remedies under the CBA before initiating the present suit.
B. Standing
In addition, Plaintiff lacks standing to enforce the Arbitration Award because the CBA grants the union the exclusive right to pursue claims on behalf of the employee. Plaintiff was not a party to the arbitration, the Union brought the action on her behalf. Plaintiff argues that she has standing to bring a breach of contract claim against the USPS because it is a state law claim that is independent of the CBA. Pursuant to the CBA, the Union is the exclusive bargaining agent for its members. Plaintiff cannot demonstrate that she has a contractual relationship with the USPS independent of the CBA and the Union.
An exception to the standing rule exists if the employee can demonstrate that the union breached its duty of fair representation. DelCostello v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, 462 U.S. 151, 164 (1983). However, in this case, Plaintiff did not contact the Union about the disagreement with the calculation of the back pay and she did not file a grievance with the Union. Plaintiff claims that the Union has breached its duty of fair representation because the Arbitrator copied the Union's counsel on a letter to Plaintiff stating that she needed to "pursue [her] claim with the parties upon the advice of legal counsel." The letter also stated that "[b]y copy of this letter I am advising the advocates in the original case of your request and my response. Please take the matter up with them as further ex parte communications with my office is not proper."
However, even if the Union was copied on the letter the Arbitrator sent to Plaintiff, Plaintiff alleges no facts to support a finding that the Union's failure to contact her rises to the level of arbitrary, discriminatory, or bad faith conduct which is required for demonstrating such a breach. Therefore, Plaintiff has not alleged sufficient facts to demonstrate that the Union breach its duty of representation. Accordingly, the court finds that Plaintiff lacks standing to bring the instant action.
CONCLUSION
According to the above reasoning, Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED, and Plaintiff's Complaint is dismissed for failure to exhaust remedies under the CBA and lack of standing.