Young v. International Union United Automobile, Aerospace & Agricultural Implement Workers, Local 651

Summary

The Sixth Circuit affirmed dismissal of claims by former Delphi employees against General Motors and the UAW concerning their classification as Tier-II wage employees after transfer to GM. The court held that only two employees timely pursued the required internal union appeal and that the remaining claims were barred by the six-month statute of limitations applicable to hybrid § 301 claims. It further held that the plaintiffs identified no contractual basis for Tier-I wages and could not maintain an independent fair-representation claim against the UAW.

Holdings

1. Only Marshall and Anderson, who individually signed the internal union appeal as required by Article 33 of the UAW constitution, tolled the six-month limitations period. The other employees failed to exhaust the required union appeal procedure and filed their claims too late.
2. Marshall and Anderson failed to identify a contractual basis for Tier-I wages because the 2009 MOU assigned them a March 17, 2008 GM corporate seniority date, which postdated GM's Tier-II wage-system effective date, and the relevant agreements did not transfer their 2006 Delphi seniority dates to GM.
3. The district court properly denied leave to amend because the proposed allegations did not establish a contractual right to transfer the employees' Delphi seniority dates or otherwise overcome the 2009 MOU's assignment of a March 17, 2008 GM seniority date.
4. The employees could not maintain an independent duty-of-fair-representation claim because their allegations concerned the UAW's handling of a grievance asserting GM's breach of collective bargaining agreements and therefore constituted a hybrid § 301 claim.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the non-signing employees' hybrid § 301 claims were timely when they did not individually sign the UAW appeal and therefore did not toll the six-month limitations period.
2. Whether Marshall and Anderson stated a contractual basis for entitlement to Tier-I wages under the relevant Delphi-GM-UAW agreements.
3. Whether the proposed amended complaint would state a plausible contractual claim and therefore avoid denial of leave to amend on futility grounds.
4. Whether the employees could maintain an independent duty-of-fair-representation claim against the UAW despite alleging that the union mishandled a grievance concerning GM's alleged breach of collective bargaining agreements.

Disposition

affirmed