Anderson v. AMBAC Industries, Inc.

New York Court of Appeals

Anderson v. AMBAC Industries, Inc.

356 N.E.2d 478, 40 N.Y.2d 865, 387 N.Y.S.2d 1006, 1976 N.Y. LEXIS 3029, 93 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2747

New York Court of Appeals·Decided October 14, 1976·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

Memorandum. The union owes a duty to fairly represent all members of the collective bargaining unit (Vaca v Sipes, 386 US 171, 190; Ford Motor Co. v Huffman, 345 US 330; Tunstall v Brotherhood, 323 US 210), whether or not they are union members (Textile Workers v Lincoln Mills, 353 US 448). Even if one assumes that former employees who are not members of the collective bargaining unit are owed some duty by their former union, the complaint and the accompanying papers in this record fall short of demonstrating any bad faith or lack of representation by the union in relation to these plaintiffs. Obviously in representing both groups the union was bound to experience some conflict of interest, but the mere fact that the union obtained different benefits for each group does not in itself constitute a showing of bad faith (see, e.g., Ford Motor Co. v Huffman, supra, at p 338). The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

*867 Chief Judge Breitel and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Cooke concur.

Order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Memorandum. The union owes a duty to fairly represent all members of the collective bargaining unit (Vaca v Sipes, 386 US 171, 190; Ford Motor Co. v Huffman, 345 US 330; Tunstall v Brotherhood, 323 US 210), whether or not they are union members (Textile Workers v Lincoln Mills, 353 US 448). Even if one assumes that former employees who are not members of the collective bargaining unit are owed some duty by their former union, the complaint and the accompanying papers in this record fall short of demonstrating any bad faith or lack of representation by the union in relation to these plaintiffs. Obviously in representing both groups the union was bound to experience some conflict of interest, but the mere fact that the union obtained different benefits for each group does not in itself constitute a showing of bad faith (see, e.g., Ford Motor Co. v Huffman, supra, at p 338). The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

*867 Chief Judge Breitel and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Cooke concur.

Order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.

Anderson v. AMBAC Industries, Inc., 356 N.E.2d 478, 40 N.Y.2d 865, 387 N.Y.S.2d 1006, 1976 N.Y. LEXIS 3029, 93 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2747 (N.Y. 1976).

Pincite

356 N.E.2d 478 (Anderson v. AMBAC Industries, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related