Union Duty of Fair Representation

This assignment analyzes a legal case concerning a union's alleged breach of its duty of fair representation to an employee facing disciplinary action. The case involves a grievance process, investigation into the claims of discrimination, and ultimately the union's decision not to proceed to arbitration. Students must evaluate the evidence presented and apply relevant legal principles to determine whether the union acted reasonably and fulfilled its obligations.

Running head: CASE EVALUATION
Case Evaluation
Name of the student
Name of the university
Author note

CASE EVALUATION
Summary of Facts
In this case plaintiff is Douglas Dejaeghere who is a former police officer of the city of
Birmingham. The plaintiff had been accused of misconduct by the city of Birmingham. The
accusation was related to the violation of several procedures, policies, regulations and rules of
the department of city police. The plaintiff also had a long history of disciplinary action at the
time of his discharge. These actions consisted of former termination of the plaintiff’s
employment in the year 1996, which had been modified by the arbitrator as suspension without
any payment in the year 1998. Two separate incidents steamed the most recent disciplinary
actions which had been taken against the plaintiff. Firstly the plaintiff had been involved in
improperly using emergency equipment which was provided to him by the police during
patrolling in his vehicle. In addition the plaintiff was found to have possessed and used in an
unauthorized manner a video camera belonging to the police department. The case has been
brought by the plaintiff against the Police Officers Association of Michigan (POAM).
The claim which has been made by the plaintiff in this case is that dependent have
violated their duty to provide fair representation to the plaintiff as they have violated the terms of
the collective bargaining agreement and not taken the grievance procedure to arbitration. The
plaintiff was a member of the defendant union as he was a police officer in the city of
Birmingham and the union represented the police officers of the city of Birmingham. The
defendants in this case are a public employee labor organization (union). POAM had represented
the plaintiff parole officer as its certified union. The employer of the plaintiff in this case is the
city of Birmingham. It is known that the relationship between the employee and the employer is
governed by the Michigan Public Employment Relations Act which sets out the right of public
workers to form, join or organize unions in the state. The employer has the duty to recognize the

CASE EVALUATION
union and indulge in collective bargaining once the labor has become exclusive bargaining
representative of the employees.
The issue in this case resulted out of the grievance process in the collective agreement.
The collective bargaining agreement had been violated according to the plaintiff and the
grievance procedure has been initiated. The defendant union had represented the plaintiff in all
the steps involved in the grievance procedure namely step 1, step 2 step 3, step 4 and step 5.
However after the completion of the steps the union was not able to get to an understating with
the employer in relation to the dispute. After no conclusion has been reached between the union
and the employer the union has the option to the issue to the process called arbitration. In this
process neutral third people analyzes the facts of the case and provide a decision which both
parties to the dispute accept. The process can be time consuming and costly of both the employer
and the union.
The claim for arbitration has to be filed within a limited time after which the right is said
to be waived or forfeited. In the given situation the defendant union did not file a claim for
arbitration within the time for the plaintiff. This situation led the plaintiff to make a claim against
the defendant.
Rules and Arguments
The duty of fair representation is imposed in labor United Stated Labor unions who
exclusively represent the employees of a particular group in bargaining. It is the duty of such
unions to represent all employees without doing any discrimination, in good faith and in a fair
manner. The situation had been recognized by the US Supreme Court through a series of cases
taking place in the mid 1940s which involved racial discrimination in railway workers. The duty

CASE EVALUATION
of fair representation is also applicable on employees who are covered by the National Labor
Relation Act and therefore the Michigan Public Employment Relations Act as in this case.
The duty is virtually applicable in every action which the union may take with respect to
bargaining with an employer while representing a member employee of the union. The duty
extends from the negotiating the terms of the agreement to managing the grievances which arise
under such agreement. The duty also includes operating an exclusive hiring hall and enforcement
of union security terms contained in a collective bargaining agreement. However it has to be
noted that the duty does not extend to rights which can be enforced by the workers in an
independent manner. The union also does not have any duty to provide assistance to the
employees for making a claim under workers compensation or other laws.
The courts generally have a deferential approach towards reviewing the decision of the
union challenged as a breach of duty for fair representation. The fact that compromises are
required by collective bargaining agreements which may favor few employees at other
employees cost, the court only hold that the duty has been violated by the unions if they have
acted in a manner which is arbitrary, discriminatory or in bad faith. In practical considerations
courts have also been led to refuse the second guess decision of the unions, if the judgment could
be subsisted by the court or jury whether there was any merit in a practical grievance, the unions
would not be able to function properly as in practical sense their judgments would rarely be final.
Therefore the courts restrain from overturning the decision of the unions as arbitrary as long as
they are based on reasons by the union even if the court feels that the decision of the union was
wrong1.
1 Taylor v Modern Engineering, Inc, 252 Mich App 655, 658; 653 NW2d 625 (2002)

CASE EVALUATION
According to the sixth step of the grievance procedure ”[s]hould the City Commission
elect to waive Step 5 or in the event the City Commission renders a decision which does not
satisfactorily settle the grievance, the Union may submit the matter to final and binding
arbitration by notifying the other party and the Federal Mediation an [sic] Conciliation Service
within fifteen (15) days . . . of receipt of the Commission’s decision or its decision to waive.”
The defendant had declined to pursue the sixth step in relation to the plaintiff. This is
because the defendant had the right to do so under the provisions of summary disposal under
MCR 2.116(c)(10). The behavior of the defendant towards the plaintiff was not unfair, arbitrary
or discriminatory. An absolute right is not provided to an individual employee that his case
would be taken to arbitration even in some instances where the grievance of the employee
against the employer have merit in relation to the collective bargaining agreement2.
The considerable discretion of the union in deciding which issue should be taken to
arbitration consists of investigating the claimed issue and the power of abandon frivolous
claims3.
Through evidence it is demonstrated in this case that the defendant through its agents,
processed the grievances of the plaintiff in relation to suspension followed by termination to the
fifth step under the CBA and then declined to pursue the sixth step of arbitration. The evidence
in relation to the investigation conducted upon the defendant by Peter Cravens (Assisting general
counsel) had conversations with the employee among other things in relation to the situation
upon which the disciplinary actions had been taken and also whether the claim of the plaintiff of
discriminatory treatment can be sustained. It is also demonstrated by the records that the officer
2 Goolsby v Detroit, 419 Mich 651, 663; 358 NW2d 856 (1984)
3 Vaca v Sipes, 386 US 171; 87 S Ct 903; 17 L Ed 2d 842 (1967)

CASE EVALUATION
was familiar with the disciplinary history of the plaintiff as he was involved in prior issues of the
employee which were subjected to arbitration.
When a claim in relation to the situation where disciplinary action was taken without just
cause is considered arbitrators where a contrary language is not provided in the CBA generally
have the power to determine whether the disciplinary action was extremely severe irrespective of
some infractions in relation to the employees4. viewing the evidence in a way which could be
most favorable to the plaintiff in the case genuine issue of material fact does not exists which
depicts that a question cannot be based by Mr. Cravens about POAM’s ability to prevail at
arbitration in relation to the suspension or termination of the employee.
Therefore it is not possible to establish through the fact that the defendant through its
agents acted in a way which is unreasonable, irrational or impulsive or having little care or acting
a discriminatory way towards the interest of the plaintiff.
Where genuine facts of material issues are absent to the question whether defendant
violated the duty of fair representation, the duty fair representation is not said to be violated
under MCR 2.116(C)(10)5. In addition the plaintiff has also failed to show any evidence that the
defendant had acted in a way which is discriminatory, unfair or unjust on the part of the plaintiff.
Conclusion
From the above discussed facts, rules and arguments provided in favor of the defendant it
is clear that the defendant has not breach the duty of fair representation which had been owed by
them to the plaintiff employee. The union has the responsibility of protecting the interest of all
4 Police Officers Ass’n of Michigan v Manistee Co, 250 Mich App 339, 344-346; 645 NW2d
713 (2002)
5 Goolsby, supra at 679

CASE EVALUATION
employees who are members to it and in such a situation the resources which the unions have are
limited. They cannot afford to take a stand for an employee who is most likely to lose the legal
battle as it is clear from the facts that he has committed an offense which is not forgivable.
Supporting such employees would be contrary to the role of the union. However in this case the
defendant union had provided support to the employee till five steps of the grievance process in
good faith. They did not proceed with the sixth step amidst the disciplinary history of the
plaintiff which was in all probabilities going to have an outcome against the union. The process
of arbitration is long and costly and the union has to think about its other employees as well.
Therefore for the protection of other employees some employees may have to lose out and there
is nothing unfair, discriminatory or unjust in the process.

CASE EVALUATION
References
Goolsby v Detroit, 419 Mich 651, 663; 358 NW2d 856 (1984)
Police Officers Ass’n of Michigan v Manistee Co, 250 Mich App 339, 344-346; 645 NW2d
Taylor v Modern Engineering, Inc, 252 Mich App 655, 658; 653 NW2d 625 (2002)
Vaca v Sipes, 386 US 171; 87 S Ct 903; 17 L Ed 2d 842 (1967)