Sands Wedeward, Susan v. Local 306, National Postal Mail Handlers Union et al
Filing
44
Transmission of Notice of Appeal, Appeal Information Sheet, Order, Judgment and Docket Sheet to Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals re 42 Notice of Appeal, (Attachments: # 1 Info Sheet, # 2 Order, # 3 Judgment, # 4 Docket Sheet) (elc),(ps)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - SUSAN ANN SANDS WEDEWARD,
OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff,
13-cv-100-bbc
v.
LOCAL 306, NATIONAL POSTAL
MAIL HANDLERS UNION,
Defendant.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - In January 2013, plaintiff Susan Ann Sands Wedeward brought suit against
defendant Local 306, National Mail Handlers Union in state court, alleging that the Union
had not done enough to represent her rights when she became disabled and could no longer
work for the United States Postal Service in Madison, Wisconsin. Defendant removed the
case to this court. After some lengthy skirmishing over the adequacy of the complaint,
plaintiff filed a second amended complaint in September 2013, dkt. #15, that was
sufficient to state a claim that defendant had breached its duty of fair representation to
plaintiff in connection with her efforts to challenge her termination by the United States
Postal Service and other matters.
The case is now before the court on defendant’s motion for summary judgment.
Defendant contends that the undisputed facts show that it fulfilled its duty to plaintiff.
Defendant is correct; nothing in the undisputed facts shows that it failed to carry out its
1
duty of fair representation to plaintiff. In fact, her response to defendant includes almost
nothing about its alleged duty to represent her but focuses on her alleged disability, which
is outside the responsibilities of the Union. Accordingly, judgment will be entered for
defendant.
From the findings of fact proposed by the parties, I find that the following facts are
undisputed.
UNDISPUTED FACTS
A. Challenge to Termination of Employment
As of August 2010, plaintiff Susan Ann Sands Wedeward was employed by the
United States Postal Service, working at a Postage and Distribution Center in Madison,
Wisconsin. At all times relevant to this action, plaintiff was a member of the bargaining
unit represented by defendant Local 306, which is an affiliate of the National Mail
Handlers Union.
Defendant has 14 branches, covering the larger postal service facilities within
Illinois and Wisconsin. It is governed by an executive board and has local branches, such
as Branch 5, which covers the Madison mail handlers. Each branch has its own branch
president, elected by union members within the branch. In addition, most branches have
a chief steward for each of the three tours of duty, as well as other stewards. Over the
years, the Union and the Postal Service have been parties to a series of collective
bargaining agreements that govern the terms and conditions of employment for postal
2
service employees. Employees needing assistance from defendant in connection with
disciplinary action or contractual rights can receive it from the branch president, from a
chief steward or any other steward.
The collective bargaining agreement allows disciplined employees to challenge their
discipline through a grievance process that can be initiated by an employee or by the
Union on behalf of an employee. Step One involves either a two-party discussion between
a supervisor and the employee or between a supervisor and a Union representative or a
three-party discussion involving the supervisor, employee and union representative.
Plaintiff sustained an injury at work in October 2006 that required her to be off
work for a period of time. When she returned, she was on a light duty limitation and
worked on Tour 1 doing hand stamping.
Sometime in or around August 2010, the manager of distribution operations at the
Madison distribution center asked Joseph Endrizzi, a mail handler steward on Tour 1 to
be present for a meeting to be held with plaintiff, involving a complaint over the moving
of plaintiff’s work desk. The matter was resolved. During the meeting the manager told
plaintiff she would have to provide updated medical documentation supporting her light
duty restriction. Plaintiff made no objection at the time, but after the meeting, she told
Endrizzi that she had decided she should not be required to provide the documentation
because she had provided information earlier showing she had a permanent disability and
did not think it necessary to provide updated documentation. She did not ask Endrizzi
for any help or advice and he took no action.
3
Sometime in late August or early September, the distribution operations manager
told Endrizzi that plaintiff had not provided the requested medical documentation and
would be transferred from her light duty assignment to her regular assignment unless she
did so. The manager told Endrizzi that plaintiff would probably need a steward when she
was reassigned. Endrizzi then spoke to another steward about the matter and both of them
met with plaintiff and urged her to provide the documentation. Plaintiff continued to
maintain that she did not need to provide the documentation and would not be doing so.
During the tour beginning September 18, 2010, the supervisor of distribution
operations, Tracey King, told Endrizzi she had spoken to plaintiff and told her she would
have to return to work on the machine she had worked on before her injury, that plaintiff
had refused to return to work and that King either sent her home or plaintiff went home
of her own accord.
Plaintiff did not return to work after September 19, although management sent her
letters accusing her of being absent without leave. Branch 5 president Jane Spakoski filed
grievances on plaintiff’s behalf challenging not only the letters, but the requirement that
plaintiff provide additional medical documentation and other matters. Plaintiff wrote the
Union frequently, sending along copies of medical documentation and other material and
letting it know that she had applied for Supplemental Security Income disability benefits
and had obtained a letter from a new doctor, saying she would have to remain out of work
because of her medical condition.
Endirizzi filed several requests for information with the postal service and obtained
4
documentation from management about its position and about its communications with
plaintiff. In January 2011, management told Endrizzi that it was going to conduct a “Day
in Court” session for plaintiff, a process that occurs before formal discipline is issued and
is intended to give the employee a chance to meet with management and respond to the
claims against her.
The Day in Court session was held on January 21, 2011. Endrizzi, plaintiff and
Tracey King were present. King reviewed the charges that plaintiff had been absent
without leave, that she had failed to maintain a proper work schedule and that she failed
to inform management of her physical situation. Plaintiff said that she was disabled and
could not work; King said she needed additional medical documentation from plaintiff.
When plaintiff said she did not have that information with her, Endrizzi went back to the
union office and returned to the session with copies of the documentation. Despite this
documentation, King said she would be issuing formal discipline.
Endrizzi told plaintiff to keep the Union informed of what was happening,
particularly if she received a formal notice of discipline. Endrizzi submitted another
request for information requiring management to provide the discipline package involving
plaintiff.
Shortly after February 17, 2011, Endrizzi received a copy of the Notice of Removal
issued to plaintiff that day. He began collecting additional information to challenge the
removal and he spoke often to plaintiff. He had several meetings with King to learn her
version of what had happened when plaintiff had been sent home in the middle of her
5
September 18-19 shift. He filed a timely grievance to protect plaintiff’s rights under the
collective bargaining agreement and reached agreements with management to extend the
date of the Step One meeting to allow him to gather more information.
Endrizzi conducted the Step One meeting with King on March 25, 2011. He
presented the Union’s view about the impropriety of the Notice of Removal, which was
that plaintiff should not have been put in the position of either doing work she was
physically incapable of performing, thereby risking an aggravation of her injuries, or going
home and that the postal service had handled the situation improperly. He told King the
Union was demanding rescission of the notice of removal, with no record of the action to
remain in plaintiff’s file, full back pay for plaintiff from the date she was sent home
through December 22, 2010, when her doctor provided a form stating she would have to
be off work for an indefinite period because of pain and weakness and that she be made
whole in all other respects.
Endrizzi’s arguments were countered by King, who said that the Management of
Division Operations had been trying to obtain the updated medical information from
plaintiff for months and had ordered her back to her old job only when she refused to
supply the documentation. King took the position that plaintiff should have returned to
work with the documentation and should have responded to the absent without leave
notices the postal service had send her. She offered a compromise: the Notice of Removal
would be rescinded, the time off would be treated as a time-served suspension and plaintiff
would have another opportunity to provided the necessary medical documentation
6
supporting a light duty assignment.
After the meeting, Endrizzi and the new Branch President, John Castagna, called
plaintiff to explain the outcome of the meeting. Plaintiff said it was not acceptable: she
was disabled and would never return to work and had applied for Soccial Security benefits
and that the postal service should discharge her because she was unable to work and would
be on permanent disability. Castagna and Endrizzi counseled plaintiff to reconsider her
position because a discharge would affect other benefits rights she had and could affect her
ability to return to work in the future if her condition improved and she wanted to return.
They told plaintiff that if she was permanently disabled it would be better for her to leave
the postal service on that basis rather than being removed for having been absent without
leave. Eventually the three of them agreed that the Union would reject King’s offer and
would revert to its original position on relief for plaintiff.
Endrizzi prepared a standard grievance form in preparation for the Step Two
proceedings. He consulted with Castagna about how best to help plaintiff, knowing that
the case would be difficult because plaintiff had not come to work since being sent home
in September 2010, she had refused to provide further documentation as requested, she
had not maintained contact with management and she had not responded to any
communications from management. In their opinion, the best option for plaintiff was to
obtain the disability benefits she was seeking and take a disability retirement from the
postal service, thereby avoiding a forfeiture of certain benefits and keeping her work record
clean in the event she was able to work in the future. In May 2011, Endrizzi reached an
7
agreement in writing with the postal service’s Step Two designee to hold the case in
abeyance pending resolution of plaintiff’s disability claim, with the right of either party to
remove the case from abeyance at any time.
In August 2011, Endrizzi learned from plaintiff that her disability claim had been
denied by the Social Security Administration initially and on reconsideration. He received
a letter from management’s Step Two designee saying that he was removing the grievance
from abeyance in light of the denial of plaintiff’s disability claim and would deny it. The
formal denial issued on September 16, 2011.
Endrizzi then prepared the corrections and additions form required to continue the
grievance and the appeal process. He sent a copy to the management representative and
another copy to defendant’s Chciago headquarters, along with other material. When a
grievance is advanced to Step Three, it is standard practice for the local Union president
to make the final decision, after the local vice president has reviewed the file, analyzed the
case and made a recommendation. In this case, the local vice president reviewed the
available information and determined that plaintiff’s case would be a difficult one to win.
However, after consulting with the local branch president, Castagna, she recommended to
the local president that the case go forward in the hope that the result would be a
settlement that would allow plaintiff to leave on a disability retirement rather than under
a notice of removal. Such a result would be advantageous for plaintiff in terms of benefits
and her eligibility for future employment. The local president followed the advice and
directed that the case advance to Step Three, advising the National Union Regional
8
Coordinator to try to negotiate the best settlement possible. The postal service denied the
grievance at Step Three.
The local vice president then recommended certification of the case for arbitration
in the hopes that doing so would persuade management to settle. The local president
followed the recommendation.
The case was assigned to an arbitration advocate and scheduled initially for a
hearing on April 1, 2012. It was rescheduled to be heard on October 7, 2013 for various
reasons, including the unavailability of the arbitrator at that time and his later retirement,
the expiration of the governing contract and the negotiation of a new one. The new
arbitrator spoke with Endrizzi and Constagna on several occasions in preparation for the
hearing. He told them to advise plaintiff that he would have to talk with her as the hearing
date drew closer and that she would have to appear at the hearing. Endrizzi and Castaga
talked to plaintiff to advise her of the date of the hearing and of the need for her to assist
in the preparations for the hearing as well as to be present for the hearing itself.
On September 27, 2013, plaintiff wrote to defendant’s Branch 5 office, asking it to
withdraw from representing her, stating that the matter would have to be handled in court.
She added that she had written to defendant’s lawyer to tell him that the arbitration would
have to be canceled because of the court proceedings. Castagna talked to defendant’s
president about plaintiff’s letter. They concluded they could not continue to arbitrate
plaintiff’s case if she did not want them to, however mistaken they thought she was.
Castagna sent plaintiff a certified letter, giving her one more chance to proceed to
9
arbitration.
Although he received confirmation that the letter had been delivered to
plaintiff’s address and signed for, he never received a response from plaintiff. Defendant
canceled the arbitration and took no further steps to represent plaintiff.
Defendant’s records show that representatives had assisted plaintiff before 2010 in
such matters as obtaining rescission of a disciplinary suspension, changing the designation
of a time period originally designated as “absent without leave” to “leave without pay” so
that there would be no disciplinary consequences and reducing the length of time that
certain letters would remain in plaintiff’s file for use in future disciplinary matters. In
addition, defendant’s representatives provided assistance to plaintiff by counseling her,
advising her about the best ways of protecting her job and interceding with management and
supervision on her behalf.
B. Workers’ Compensation Claim
When postal service employees are injured on the job, their recourse is to pursue their
claims through the service’s Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs. This process is not
covered by the collective bargaining agreement, so the Union plays no part in it. Instead,
employees pursue claims for injuries on their own or with the assistance of a privately
retained lawyer. They may consult with Union representatives for advice or assistance, but
in those instances, the Union representatives are not performing an official union function.
10
OPINION
From the undisputed facts, it is clear that defendant Local 306 did not deprive
plaintiff of her right to fair representation in her labor dispute with the United States Postal
Service. To the contrary, the facts show that defendant made extensive efforts to assist
plaintiff in challenging her termination from employment following the incident during her
September 18-19, 2010 shift. Its representatives continued to do so despite plaintiff’s
adamant refusal to provide the postal service the additional, updated medical documentation
it was seeking. Her refusal may have stemmed from frustration over the service’s repeated
requests for documentation she believed she had provided earlier. Whatever its roots, her
refusal to respond to the requests stymied defendant’s efforts to help her reach a favorable
resolution of her employment dispute.
To the extent that plaintiff believes that she was denied fair representation because
she did not receive the relief she wanted or because the process was an extended one, she is
mistaken. Defendant’s duty of fair representation does not require it to obtain whatever
relief a member might be seeking. Its duty is far more limited. The test is whether it served
the interests of all of its members “without hostility or discrimination toward any,” exercised
its discretion “with complete good faith and honesty” and avoided arbitrary conduct. Vaca
v. Sipes, 386 U.S. 171, 177 (1967).
Plaintiff has not shown that defendant did not meet this standard. Indeed, it does
not appear from her brief that she is even interested in pursuing her claim that defendant
did not fulfill its duty of fair representation. Instead, she seems to have changed her focus
11
to defendant’s failure to help her obtain disability benefits from the postal service. If so, she
has no claim. She could not proceed on such an allegation because the Postal Service’s
workers’ compensation program is not covered by the collective bargaining agreement
between the service and the Union. Thus, defendant owed no duty to plaintiff to assist her
in pursuing a claim for damages arising out of any injuries she suffered at work.
In summary, plaintiff has come forward with no evidence to suggest that she could
put into dispute at trial defendant’s showing that it acted toward plaintiff with good faith
and honesty and carried out its duty to her without hostility or discrimination. Her failure
to produce such evidence means that judgment must be entered against her. At the summary
judgment stage, it is plaintiff’s obligation “to make a showing sufficient to establish the
existence of an element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the
burden of proof at trial.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986). Plaintiff
did not make such a showing on an essential element of her case with respect to which she
has the burden of proof. This means that defendant is entitled to a judgment as a matter of
law. Id.
ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that the motion for summary judgment filed by defendant Local
306, National Postal Mail Handlers Union, is GRANTED. The clerk of court is directed to
12
enter judgment in favor of defendant and close this case.
Entered this 16th day of July, 2014.
BY THE COURT:
/s/
BARBARA B. CRABB
District Judge
‘
13
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?