Quimby v. Trans World Airlines, Inc.
Quimby v. Trans World Airlines, Inc.
Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM
Plaintiff and defendants Trans World Airlines (hereinafter TWA) and International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (hereinafter Union) have filed cross motions for summary judgment. The relevant facts are not in dispute.
The plaintiff then elected to pursue his remedy for wrongful discharge in state court as was his right under the holding in Moore v. Illinois Central R. Co., 312 U.S. 630, 61 S.Ct. 754, 85 L.Ed. 1089 (1941). However, during the pendency of his state action, the Supreme Court overruled Moore and held that a union employee governed by the Railway Labor Act, 45 U.S.C. § 151 et seq. (1970), was required to follow the grievance and arbitration procedures as set out in the collective bargaining agreement between union and employer. Andrews v. Louisville & Nashville R. Co., 406 U.S. 320, 92 S.Ct. 1562, 32 L.Ed.2d 95 (1972). Plaintiff, believing that he was thereby foreclosed from pursuing his suit in state court any further,
Despite some earlier confusion, it is now clear that plaintiff does not seek to litigate the merits of his discharge in this court. Rather, plaintiff asks that we order the defendants to arbitrate his grievance before the System Board of Adjustment.
The problem with plaintiff’s request is that under Article XII of the collective bargaining agreement,
While plaintiff might have a claim against the Union for breach of its duty of fair representation if he were able to demonstrate that the Union’s decision not to pursue his grievance was arbitrary or discriminatory, see Conrad v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 494 F.2d 914, 916-17 (C.A.7, 1974), that issue is not before us and we express no opinion on it. Accordingly, we grant defendant’s motion for summary judgment, and deny plaintiff’s motion.
. Defendants assert that plaintiff was incorrect. in believing that the decision in Andrews was retroactive, and that plaintiff should be held to his election to proceed in state court. While there is some doubt about the retroactivity of Andrews, see Cipriano v. Houma, 395 U.S. 701, 706, 89 S.Ct. 1897, 23 L.Ed.2d 647 (1969), it is unnecessary for us to pass on this issue.
. Article XII, paragraph (d), provides:
“The Board [of Adjustment] shall consider any dispute properly submitted to it by the President-General Chairman of the Union or his authorized representative, or by tiie chief operating official of the Company or his authorized representative
Reference
- Full Case Name
- Mark QUIMBY v. TRANS WORLD AIRLINES, INC., and International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers
- Cited By
- 1 case
- Status
- Published