Issue
In Jones v. Omnitrans, (2004 Daily Journal D.A.R. 15,262, Cal.App. 4 Dist., Dec. 23, 2004), the California Court of Appeal addressed the issue of whether a discharged employee was denied due process where his employer refused his request for arbitration because the memorandum of understanding between his union and his employer vested the union with the exclusive authority to decide whether to request arbitration.
Facts
Omnitrans, a local public transit agency, dismissed Jeffrey Jones from his employment for misconduct. Although Jones requested arbitration, his union, Amalgamated Transit Union Local 1704 (Union), declined to take the matter to arbitration. Jones then asked Omnitrans to proceed with arbitration without Union’s participation. Ominitrans refused Jones’ request because it concluded that it did not have the authority to engage in arbitration pursuant to the memorandum of understanding (MOU) between Union and Omnitrans.
The MOU provides for a three-step formal grievance procedure. The first step provides that an employee may present his or her grievance in writing to the Director of Operations. If the grievance is not resolved, the employee must submit the grievance to the CEO/General Manager. Both steps one and two may be pursued with or without Union representation. However, if the grievance is still not resolved, pursuant to the third step the employee, along with a Union representative, may request in writing that the grievance be referred to a grievance committee. The Union must call for a membership vote to determine whether or not it wishes to proceed with the third step.
Jones brought a lawsuit alleging that the MOU is unenforceable because it waives his right to due process. The trial court found in favor of Omnitrans and Jones appealed to the Court of Appeal.
Appellate Court Decision
The Court of Appeal concluded that the three-step grievance procedure satisfied the requirements of due process. It noted that Jones could only be discharged for cause. Under California law, an employer may not discharge a public employee who is subject to dismissal only for cause unless the employee is afforded procedural safeguards that satisfy the requirements of due process. In order to satisfy such requirements, the employee must be given 1) notice of the reasons for termination, 2) an opportunity to respond to the charges, and 3) an evidentiary hearing at which the employer must bring forth facts supporting the decision to terminate.
The Court determined that a union needs to have discretion in determining which grievances to arbitrate because such discretion “is essential to the function of the collective bargaining system.” A union must be allowed to “sort out the substantial grievances from the unjustified ones.” The Court emphasized that a union can be sued for breach of its duty of fair representation if it acts “arbitrarily, discriminatorily or in bad faith” in deciding which grievances should be arbitrated.
Here, the Court determined that the grievance procedure provided in the MOU afforded Jones sufficient due process because Jones received written notice from Omnitrans providing the reasons for his dismissal, and he had the right to submit his grievance in writing and to meet with two levels of management to discuss his grievance. The Court concluded that the provision giving Union the exclusive authority to decide whether to pursue the grievance to arbitration provided sufficient protection because Union had a duty of fair representation. Because the grievance procedure afforded Jones adequate due process, the Court held that Omnitrans had no duty to arbitrate the grievance in the absence of Union’s request to arbitrate.
Legal Alert Email Disclaimer
Legal Alerts are published by Kronick Moskovitz Tiedemann & Girard as a timely reporting service to alert clients and other friends of recent changes in case law, opinions or codes. This alert does not represent the legal opinion of the firm or any member of the firm on the issues described, and the information contained in this publication should not be construed as legal advice. Should further analysis or explanation of the subject matter be required, please contact the attorney with whom you normally consult.