Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Rowland v. Teamsters' Local Union No. 25 Affiliated With The International Brotherhood of Teamsters

United States District Court, D. Massachusetts

September 26, 2018

MICHAEL ROWLAND, Plaintiff,
v.
TEAMSTERS' LOCAL UNION NO. 25 AFFILIATED WITH THE INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS; THE FOLLOWING INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS and REPRESENTATIVES OF SAID LOCAL NO. 25 SEAN M. O'BRIEN, PRESIDENT, JOHN A. MURPHY, BUSINESS AGENT, AND GERALD WRIGHT AND THE OTHER INDIVIDUALS COMPOSING OF THE MEMBERSHIP OF TEAMSTERS LOCAL UNION 25 WHOSE NAMES TO THE PLAINTIFF ARE UNKNOWN, Defendants.

          OPINION AND ORDER

          GEORGE A. O'TOOLE, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         The plaintiff, Michael Rowland, brings suit against Teamsters Local Union No. 25 (the “Union”), Union president Sean M. O'Brien, Union business agent John A. Murphy, and Union steward Gerald Wright. Rowland, a former member of the Union, alleges the Union breached its duty to provide him with fair representation in connection with his termination from employment at DHL Express (USA), Inc. (“DHL”) by failing to file a timely appeal in accordance with the grievance procedure outlined in the collective bargaining agreement between the Union and DHL. The defendants have moved for summary judgment, contending in relevant part that Rowland's suit is barred by the applicable statute of limitations.

         I. Factual Background

         The following facts are undisputed unless otherwise noted:

         Rowland was a Union member and worked at DHL. On March 19, 2014, he was involved in a motor vehicle accident while operating a DHL vehicle at work. On March 21, 2014, Rowland received a letter of termination from DHL. The letter read in part:

On March 19, 2014 you were involved in a motor vehicle accident. While backing, you struck a parked vehicle. After a thorough investigation it was determined that this was a preventable accident caused by your careless and neglectful actions.
As a result of the company's findings, you are hereby terminated per Article 29, Discharge & Suspension of the New England Rider to the DHL National Agreement with the International Teamsters Union.

         (Notice of Removal, Ex. A at 13 (dkt. no. 2-2).)

         Article 29 of the collective bargaining agreement (the “CBA”) between the Union and DHL provides that

The Employer shall not discharge nor suspend any employee without just cause, but in respect to discharge or suspension shall give at least one (1) warning notice of the complaint against such employee to the employee, in writing, and a copy of the same to the Union affected, except that no warning notice need be given to an employee before he is discharged if the cause of such discharge is dishonesty or drunkenness, or recklessness resulting in serious accident while on duty, or the carrying of unauthorized passengers, failure to report a known accident, or illegal drug induced intoxication . . . . Appeal from discharge, suspension, or warning notice must be taken within ten (10) days by written notice . . . .

(Pl.'s App. 463 (dkt. no. 42).)[1]

         Additionally, under the CBA a grievance for disciplinary-related matters “must be filed within ten (10) calendar days of the receipt of discipline. . . . The grievance must be reduced to writing and presented to the Facility Manager or his designee.” (Id. at 459-60.) A grievance “shall be considered waived if not filed within the time limits set forth” in the CBA. (Id. at 462.)

         Under Article 29, the Union was required to file an appeal of the termination within ten calendar days of Rowland's receipt of the DHL letter, but it failed to do so. On April 8, 2014, DHL notified Rowland that by reason of no appeal having been filed in a timely fashion, Rowland's employment with DHL was being terminated immediately.

         Union steward Wright maintained he had submitted a timely grievance form. DHL informed the Union that if it produced a copy of the grievance it would return Rowland to his job pending resolution of his termination through the grievance procedure in accordance with Article 29. DHL was advised that Wright had burned ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.