Hickman v. Summit Logistics, Inc.

Ninth Circuit

Hickman v. Summit Logistics, Inc.

22 F. App'x 941

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedJanuary 9, 2002

DocketNo. 00-15487; D.C. No. CV-98-02301-LKK/JFM

StatusPublished

This text of 22 F. App'x 941 (Hickman v. Summit Logistics, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hickman v. Summit Logistics, Inc., 22 F. App'x 941 (9th Cir. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

*

Plaintiff Matthew Hickman appeals a grant of summary judgment in favor of defendants and the denial of his motion for reconsideration. Hickman’s complaint alleges a hybrid Labor Management Relations Act § 301/National Labor Relations Act fair representation cause of action. We have jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1291,¹ and we affirm.

[942]*942We review orders granting summary judgment de novo. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1131 (9th Cir.2000) (en banc). We review the interpretation of collective bargaining agreements de novo. Simula, Inc. v. Autoliv, Inc., 175 F.3d 716, 719 (9th Cir.1999). We review denials of motions for reconsideration for abuse of discretion. Minnesota Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Ensley, 174 F.3d 977, 987 (9th Cir.1999).

II

The claimed basis for Hickman’s discharge was “severe misconduct.” “[Sjevere misconduct” discharges do not require application of the procedural protections appropriate for “just cause” discharges under the collective bargaining agreement. “[IJmmediate discharge” (emphasis added) is permitted for such misconduct. Hickman’s act of misconduct, his second such act involving Summit’s sole customer, qualified as “severe misconduct.” Hickman’s discharge did not violate the agreement.

Further, Hickman has not shown prejudice from any claimed procedural irregularity. Summit conducted a facially reasonable investigation by interviewing witnesses and soliciting Hickman’s version of what happened. The grievance procedure provided for review by the Board of Adjustment. The Board heard testimony, including Hickman’s denial of the reported misconduct, and upheld Summit’s finding of severe misconduct. Board members testified that they simply did not find Hickman’s version of events to be credible. Hickman does not question the Board’s rectitude.

Ill

The decision of the Board, half of whom were union members, was unanimous. Hickman has not shown that the conduct of the union in representing him throughout the grievance process was arbitrary, discriminatory or in bad faith.

AFFIRMED.²

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

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

MEMORANDUM

*

Plaintiff Matthew Hickman appeals a grant of summary judgment in favor of defendants and the denial of his motion for reconsideration. Hickman’s complaint alleges a hybrid Labor Management Relations Act § 301/National Labor Relations Act fair representation cause of action. We have jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1291,¹ and we affirm.

[942]*942We review orders granting summary judgment de novo. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1131 (9th Cir.2000) (en banc). We review the interpretation of collective bargaining agreements de novo. Simula, Inc. v. Autoliv, Inc., 175 F.3d 716, 719 (9th Cir.1999). We review denials of motions for reconsideration for abuse of discretion. Minnesota Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Ensley, 174 F.3d 977, 987 (9th Cir.1999).

II

The claimed basis for Hickman’s discharge was “severe misconduct.” “[Sjevere misconduct” discharges do not require application of the procedural protections appropriate for “just cause” discharges under the collective bargaining agreement. “[IJmmediate discharge” (emphasis added) is permitted for such misconduct. Hickman’s act of misconduct, his second such act involving Summit’s sole customer, qualified as “severe misconduct.” Hickman’s discharge did not violate the agreement.

Further, Hickman has not shown prejudice from any claimed procedural irregularity. Summit conducted a facially reasonable investigation by interviewing witnesses and soliciting Hickman’s version of what happened. The grievance procedure provided for review by the Board of Adjustment. The Board heard testimony, including Hickman’s denial of the reported misconduct, and upheld Summit’s finding of severe misconduct. Board members testified that they simply did not find Hickman’s version of events to be credible. Hickman does not question the Board’s rectitude.

Ill

The decision of the Board, half of whom were union members, was unanimous. Hickman has not shown that the conduct of the union in representing him throughout the grievance process was arbitrary, discriminatory or in bad faith.

AFFIRMED.²

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

99 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 2511, 1999 Daily Journal D.A.R. 3292 Minnesota Mutual Life Insurance Company, Plaintiff-Counter-Defendant-Appellee v. Donald Joe Ensley, Defendant-Counter-Claimant-Cross-Claimant-Appellant v. Laura L. Ensley, Defendant-Cross-Defendant-Appellee, and Kevin Burke Burke Group, Counter-Defendants-Appellees

174 F.3d 977 (Ninth Circuit, 1999)

Simula, Inc. v. Autoliv, Inc.

175 F.3d 716 (Ninth Circuit, 1999)

Lopez v. Smith

203 F.3d 1122 (Ninth Circuit, 2000)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

22 F. App'x 941, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hickman-v-summit-logistics-inc-ca9-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack