Conrad v. Delta Air Lines, Inc.
FACTS: Conrad (plaintiff) was hired by Delta Airlines as a pilot which made the Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA) his collective bargaining representative. However, Conrad was fired during his probationary period of one year and both Delta and ALPA refused to provide him with an investigation and hearing prior to discharge. Conrad sued Delta and ALPA for unlawful discharge as he had not been accorded his right to an investigation and hearing nor his right to join a union of his choice. He also alleged that ALPA’s failure to represent him was a breach of its duty of fair representation.
ISSUE: Whether it is unlawful to discharge an employee on probation without an investigation and hearing; whether it the district court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of defendants; whether ALPA
REASONING:
Rules
· Collective bargaining agreement § 32-33: dismissal without a specified procedure of investigation and hearing is prohibited. § 32(c)(2): pilots are excluded from this right during their first 12 months.
· Railway Labor Act
o 45 U.S.C. § 152: Employees shall have the right to organize and bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing.
· F.R.C.P. Rule 56(c): summary judgments are appropriate only where there is no genuine issue as to any material fact. Cases in which the underlying issue is one of motivation, intent, or some other subjective fact are particularly inappropriate for summary judgment.
Application
The court begins by establishing that it is not inherently unlawful to discharge an employee on probation without an investigation or hearing. In the absence of a controlling statute or agreement saying otherwise, the employer is free to discharge his employee for cause or without cause. Neither the Railway Labor Act nor the collective bargaining agreement prohibits the employer from firing employees on probation without demonstrating cause, nor is it irrational to permit the employer to do so.
However, the story would change if it is found that that plaintiff was discharged on account of his union activity. If true, the termination would be unlawful regardless of whether the plaintiff was accorded an investigation and hearing. Plaintiff relied on the flight manager report (“his over-activity with the local council as an apprentice member of the ALPA … lead to the conclusion that potential trouble will be avoided by acceptance of his resignation”) to further this argument, while defendant countered using additional affidavits from leadership to argue that plaintiff’s union activities were an insubstantial factor in the termination decision. The district court accepted the defendant’s counter and granted them summary judgment, but the present court finds this erroneous. Rule 56(c) stipulates that summary judgments should only be granted if the motioning party demonstrates that there is no genuine issue of material fact, but Delta fails to do this regarding the insubstantiality of its anti-union motivation. Determining this should have been reversed for the trier of the fact, so the court reverses and remands for further proceedings. However, the same cannot be said for ALPA. It cannot have been aware of Delta’s alleged anti-union motivation when initially denying the plaintiff representation. As it was merely abiding by the collective bargaining agreement which is lawful, the ALPA cannot be said to have violated the Railway Labor Act.
HOLDING: Court affirms regarding ALPA; reverses and remands regarding Delta.