Harold Brown (plaintiff) was employed by Trans World Airlines (TWA) under TWA's collective bargaining agreement with the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (Union). After he was fired, plaintiff brought this action against the Union and TWA alleging unfair representation by the Union, improper discharge by TWA, and collusion between the Union and TWA. The district court granted summary judgment for the defendants on the ground that undisputed facts showed there was no breach of the Union's duty of fair representation and no collusion between the Union and TWA. 569 F. Supp. 247. We affirm.
Quoting Arnold, 296 F.2d at 195, the Hankin court concluded that โ[t]his in itself is little consequence because members of such boards are not in legal contemplation, or in fact, supposed to be neutral arbitrators.โ 1987 WL 20136, *2โ3 (internal citations and quotations omitted); see also Brown v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 569 F.Supp. 247, 252 (W.D.Mo.1983)aff'd,746 F.2d 1354 (8th Cir.1984) (the fact that the employer's partisan member had participated in the plaintiff's termination decision did not constitute fraud or corruption within the meaning of the RLA). BMWED's alternative argument, that Kerby had an obligation to disclose whatever he knew about Hughes or conduct an investigation into his work because of alleged errors in his Kawa report, does not have any merit.
With respect to Plaintiff's claim that the union breached its duty in not inviting him to attend the arbitration hearing to present his own testimony and evidence, the law is quite clear: a union is afforded wide discretion in deciding which evidence to submit and which witnesses should testify at an arbitration hearing, and, thus, no breach of duty of fair representation can be predicated upon such claims. See e.g., Castelli v. Douglas Aircraft Co., 752 F.2d 1480, 1483 (9th Cir. 1985); Ethier v. United States Postal Service, 590 F.2d 733 (8th Cir. 1979); Brown v. TWA, Inc., 569 F. Supp. 247 (W.D.Mo. 1983), aff'd, 746 F.2d 1354 (8th Cir. 1984); Hagans v. Budd Co., 597 F. Supp. 89, 96 (E.D.Pa. 1984); Sargent v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, supra, 713 F. Supp. at 1010. Thus, the Court finds no legal merit in Plaintiff's contention that the union breached its duty of fair representation in failing to invite him to attend the arbitration hearing and testify on his own behalf.
The "sketchy beginning" of a contention is no bar to summary judgment. Brown v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 569 F. Supp. 247, 255 (W.D.Mo. 1983), aff'd. 746 F.2d 1354 (8th Cir. 1984).
In sum, although the case law is divided as to the exact standard to be used, Henry must at least demonstrate that ALPA's conduct amounted to "gross neglect, perfunctory conduct, or egregious or reckless disregard for the rights of the employee" in order to prevail on his claim. Brown v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 569 F. Supp. 247 (W.D.Mo. 1983). Applying these principles to the present case, this Court holds that the ALPA, as a matter of law, did not breach its duty of fair representation.