Grayson v. Titanium Metals Corp. et al

Filing 28

ORDER: Defendants, United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union, AFL-CIO, CLC (the "International") and Local 4856 of the United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Manufacturing , Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union, AFL-CIO, CLC (the "Local"), Motion to 3 Motion to Dismiss is Granted. United Steel Workers of America; AFL-CIO-CLC and Local Union No. 4856 terminated. Signed by Judge Kent J. Dawson on 01/30/09. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SRK)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Presently before the Court is Defendants, United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union, AFL-CIO, CLC (the "International") and Local 4856 of the United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union, AFL-CIO, CLC (the "Local"), Motion to Dismiss (#3). Though the time for doing so has passed, Plaintiff has failed to file a response in opposition to the motion. Therefore, in accordance with Local Rule 7-2(d), and good cause being found, the Court grants the motion to dismiss. I. Analysis Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act, 1947, 29 U.S.C. § 185, provides for suits in the district courts for violation of collective-bargaining agreements between labor organizations and employers without regard to the amount in controversy. Hines v. Anchor Motor v. TITANIUM METALS CORP., et al., Defendants. FLOYD GRAYSON, Plaintiff, Case No. 2:08-01754-KJD-GWF ORDER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

Freight, Inc., 424 U.S. 554, 562 (1976). Section 301 contemplates suits by individual employees as well as between unions and employers. See id. Section 301 encompasses suits seeking "to vindicate uniquely personal rights of employees such as wages, hours, overtime pay, and wrongful discharge." Id. Plaintiff's present suit against Titanium Metals Corporation and the International and Local Unions for breach of contract, breach of the duty of fair representation, retaliation, conspiracy, and interference with prospective economic advantage is the kind of case Congress provided for in Section 301. See id. Therefore, though some claims appear to be framed under state law, they are clearly preempted. See Stallcop v. Kaiser Found. Hosp., 820 F.2d 1044, 1048 (9th Cir. 1987). Grayson's claim for breach of contract is a hybrid section 301 and fair representation claim. See Harris v. Alumax Mill Products, Inc., 897 F.2d 400, 404 (9th Cir. 1990). A fair representation claim is an assertion that the Union breached its duty to fairly and responsibly represent plaintiff. Without the hybrid claim, an employer could always escape liability for wrongful discharge by asserting a plaintiff's failure to exhaust administrative remedies set up by a collective bargaining agreement. See Hines, 424 U.S. at 562-67. The Supreme Court has held that the six-month statute of limitations period contained in section 10(b) of the National Labor Relations Act applies to hybrid suits. See DelCostello v. Int'l Bhd. of Teamsters, 462 U.S. 151 (1983). Grayson's claim accrued no later than August 5, 2005 when he was informed by the Union Defendants that his claim was not suitable for arbitration. See Harris, 897 F.2d at 404 (citing Galindo v. Stoody Co., 793 F.2d 1502, 1509 (9th Cir. 1986) (the statute of limitations "begins to run when an employee knows or should have known of the alleged breach of duty of fair representation"). Grayson, however, did not file his complaint until December 12, 2008, at least fourty (40) months later. Grayson asserted these facts in his complaint and the Court must take them as true in resolving a motion to dismiss, especially where Plaintiff has made no response disputing this. Thus, his complaint against the Unions is time-barred. //// //// 2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

II. Conclusion Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants, United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union, AFL-CIO, CLC (the "International") and Local 4856 of the United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union, AFL-CIO, CLC (the "Local"), Motion to Dismiss (#3) is GRANTED. DATED this 30th day of January 2009.

_____________________________ Kent J. Dawson United States District Judge

3