Nicholas Sarnelli v. Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen of North America, Afl-Cio Local Union 33

First Circuit

Nicholas Sarnelli v. Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen of North America, Afl-Cio Local Union 33

457 F.2d 807, 79 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 3088, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 10508

Court of Appeals for the First Circuit·Decided March 24, 1972·No. 71-1384·Published·Cited by 7 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Determination of the defendant union’s liability vel non for refusing to arbitrate plaintiff’s discharge must depend upon the extent of the obligation imposed upon a collective bargaining agent. See Humphrey v. Moore, 1964, 375 U.S. 335, 342, 84 S.Ct. 363, 11 L.Ed. 2d 370. If the union has a duty to represent a member up to the point that it could show it was unreasonable, viewed simply from his standpoint, to go further, as plaintiff seemingly contends, liability might possibly be found here. This is not, however, the proper test. The only burden upon a union is to act fairly and in good faith, something considerably less than a duty of support measured solely with reference to the member. Vaca v. Sipes, 1967, 386 U.S. 171, 190-193, 87 S.Ct. 903, 17 L.Ed.2d 842; De Arroyo v. Sindicato de Trabajadores Packinghouse, AFL-CIO, 1 Cir., 1970, 425 F.2d 281, cert. denied sub nom. Puerto Rico Tel. Co. v. Figueroa de Arroyo, 400 U.S. 877, 91 S.Ct. 117, 27 L.Ed.2d 114; Bazarte v. *808 United Transp. Union, 3 Cir., 1970, 429 F.2d 868, 872. While the processing of a meritorious grievance in a perfunctory fashion may be a violation of the duty of fair representation, Vaca v. Sipes, ante 386 at 191, 87 S.Ct. 903, the court found, on the evidence, that the union’s actions were adequate and reasonable. The court, 333 F.Supp. 228, applied the proper standard. We see no error.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Determination of the defendant union’s liability vel non for refusing to arbitrate plaintiff’s discharge must depend upon the extent of the obligation imposed upon a collective bargaining agent. See Humphrey v. Moore, 1964, 375 U.S. 335, 342, 84 S.Ct. 363, 11 L.Ed. 2d 370. If the union has a duty to represent a member up to the point that it could show it was unreasonable, viewed simply from his standpoint, to go further, as plaintiff seemingly contends, liability might possibly be found here. This is not, however, the proper test. The only burden upon a union is to act fairly and in good faith, something considerably less than a duty of support measured solely with reference to the member. Vaca v. Sipes, 1967, 386 U.S. 171, 190-193, 87 S.Ct. 903, 17 L.Ed.2d 842; De Arroyo v. Sindicato de Trabajadores Packinghouse, AFL-CIO, 1 Cir., 1970, 425 F.2d 281, cert. denied sub nom. Puerto Rico Tel. Co. v. Figueroa de Arroyo, 400 U.S. 877, 91 S.Ct. 117, 27 L.Ed.2d 114; Bazarte v. *808 United Transp. Union, 3 Cir., 1970, 429 F.2d 868, 872. While the processing of a meritorious grievance in a perfunctory fashion may be a violation of the duty of fair representation, Vaca v. Sipes, ante 386 at 191, 87 S.Ct. 903, the court found, on the evidence, that the union’s actions were adequate and reasonable. The court, 333 F.Supp. 228, applied the proper standard. We see no error.

Affirmed.

Nicholas Sarnelli v. Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen of North America, Afl-Cio Local Union 33, 457 F.2d 807, 79 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 3088, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 10508 (1st Cir. 1972).

Pincite

457 F.2d 807 (Nicholas Sarnelli v. Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen of North America, Afl-Cio Local Union 33) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related