
USCA1 Opinion

	




                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT                              _________________________          No. 95-1881                                 JOSE AYALA, ET AL.,                               Plaintiffs, Appellants,                                          v.               UNION DE TRONQUISTAS DE PUERTO RICO, LOCAL 901, ET AL.,                                Defendants, Appellees.                              _________________________                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO                    [Hon. Hector M. Laffitte, U.S. District Judge]                                              ___________________                              _________________________                                        Before                                Selya, Circuit Judge,                                       _____________                      Aldrich and Coffin, Senior Circuit Judges.                                          _____________________                              _________________________               John Ward Llambias on brief for appellants.               __________________               Ana  Rosa Biascoechea,  Raquel  M. Dulzaides,  and  Jimenez,               _____________________   ____________________        ________          Graffam & Lausell on consolidated brief for appellees.          _________________                                 ____________________                                   January 24, 1996                                 ____________________                    SELYA, Circuit Judge.  This is a hybrid action  brought                    SELYA, Circuit Judge.                           _____________          pursuant to section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act, 29          U.S.C.   185 (1994).   In it, the plaintiffs complain that  Union          de Tronquistas de  Puerto Rico,  Local 901 (the  Union) acted  in          dereliction  of its duty  of fair representation,  and that their          employer,  Crowley American  Transport, Inc.  (Crowley), violated          the collective bargaining agreement (the CBA)  that was in effect          at  the  times  relevant  hereto.    The  defendants  denied  the          plaintiffs'  allegations.    In  due course,  the district  court          granted the  defendants' motion for summary judgment.   See Ayala                                                                  ___ _____          v.  Union de  Tronquistas de  P.R., Local  901, C.A.  No. 94-2234              __________________________________________          (HL),  slip op. (D.P.R. June  16, 1995).   The plaintiffs appeal.          We summarily affirm.                    There is no need to tarry.  Having  read the record and          carefully  considered the  parties' briefs,  we find no  basis to          disturb  the district  court's  well-reasoned decision.   To  the          precise  contrary, we regard this as a paradigmatic case in which          to put  into practice our stated belief that, when "a trial court          has  produced a  first-rate  work product,  a reviewing  tribunal          should  hesitate to wax longiloquent simply to hear its own words          resonate."  In  re San Juan Dupont  Plaza Hotel Fire  Litig., 989                      ________________________________________________          F.2d  36,  38  (1st Cir.  1993).    Consequently,  we affirm  the          judgment for substantially the  reasons elucidated in the opinion          below.  We add only three brief comments.                    First:  The plaintiffs  (who are members of  Local 901)                    First:                    _____          urge   that   they  were   entitled   to   seniority  rights   by                                          2          classification,  and  that,  therefore,  the  Union  should  have          safeguarded them against being "bumped" from their laborers' jobs          by  non-laborers  with  greater  company-wide  seniority.    This          exhortation is unavailing.  While the CBA is admittedly ambiguous          on the key  point of what sort of seniority  (company-wide or in-          classification)  prevails in respect to laborers' positions, past          practice over many years   the so-called law of the  shop   makes          it  transpicuously clear that  the most plausible  reading of the          CBA favors  company-wide seniority  as the  appropriate measure.1          In  this situation,  the law  of the  shop controls.   See United                                                                 ___ ______          Steelworkers  v. Warrior  & Gulf  Navig. Co.,  363 U.S.  574, 580          ____________     ___________________________          (1960).                    Second:   In all  events, disaffected employees  do not                    Second:                    ______          possess  an  absolute  right  to  have  their  union  shepherd  a          complaint through the grievance  process to the bitter end.   "In          the   context  of   employee   grievances,  the   duty  of   fair          representation  is  not a  straitjacket  which  forces unions  to          pursue  grievance   remedies  under  the   collective  bargaining          agreement in every case where an employee has a complaint against          the company.  . . .  A  union is accorded considerable discretion          in dealing  with  grievance  matters,  and it  may  consider  the          interests  of all  its members  when deciding  whether or  not to          press the claims  of an  individual employee."   Seymour v.  Olin                                                           _______     ____          Corp., 666 F.2d  202, 208  (Former 5th Cir.  1982).  Put  another          _____                                        ____________________               1It  is worthy of note  that several of  the plaintiffs were          themselves,   on   earlier   occasions,   beneficiaries   of  the          interpretation that they now strain to repudiate.                                          3          way,  a union, caught in the middle between dueling employees, is          not  obliged to throw some union members  to the wolves merely to          placate others.                    In this case,  the Union offered to process a grievance          that presented both sides of the  story.  The plaintiffs asked to          have  this   proposed  grievance  withdrawn.     They  sought  to          substitute  in  its  place  a grievance  containing  a  one-sided          presentation and  adamantly insisted that the  Union embrace this          version.    Understandably, the  Union declined  to  do so.   The          undisputed facts  reveal that the Union acted  reasonably both in          offering  to press a balanced grievance and in refusing to grieve          on the plaintiffs' terms.  No  more is exigible.  See, e.g., Vaca          ________________________                          ___  ____  ____          v. Sipes, 386 U.S.  171, 190-91 (1967); De Arroyo v. Sindicato de             _____                                _________    ____________          Trabajadores  Packinghouse, 425  F.2d  281, 284  n.2 (1st  Cir.),          __________________________          cert. denied, 400 U.S. 877 (1970).          _____ ______                    This   observation  leads   directly   to   a   further          observation.  Vaca teaches that, even if a union misconstrues the                        ____          CBA, its  misconstruction,  simpliciter, does  not  constitute  a                                      ___________          breach of its duty of fair representation.  See Vaca, 386 U.S. at                                                      ___ ____          190.  There  is no breach  unless the union's  "conduct toward  a          member   of  the   collective  bargaining   unit   is  arbitrary,          discriminatory or in  bad faith."   Id.; accord  Air Line  Pilots                                              ___  ______  ________________          Ass'n  v. O'Neill,  499 U.S.  65, 67  (1991); Alicea  v. Suffield          _____     _______                             ______     ________          Poultry,  Inc.,  902 F.2d  125, 130  (1st  Cir. 1990).    In this          ______________          instance, no  rational factfinder  could conclude that  the Union          crossed that line.                                          4                    Third:  The plaintiffs' case against Crowley is no more                    Third:                    _____          robust than  their case against the Union.  In point of fact, the          inadequacy of  the plaintiffs'  claim against the  Union presages          the  inadequacy  of their  claim against  Crowley.   In  order to          excuse  their  failure to  exhaust  contractual  remedies in  the          conventional manner and prevail in a hybrid section 301 action on          a  theory  that  the   employer  violated  the  CBA,  disgruntled          employees  must  first  prevail on  their  unfair  representation          claim.  See Breininger v. Sheet Metal Workers Int'l, 493 U.S. 67,                  ___ __________    _________________________          82 (1989);  DelCostello v.  International Bhd. of  Teamsters, 462                      ___________     ________________________________          U.S.   151,  164-65   (1983);  Chaparro-Febus   v.  International                                         ______________       _____________          Longshoremen  Ass'n, Local  1575,  983 F.2d  325,  330 (1st  Cir.          ________________________________          1992).  Failing in  the first instance, the plaintiffs  also fail          in the second instance.                    Mindful,  as  we  are,  of the  district  court's  more          exegetic  treatment of these (and  other) matters, we  need go no          further.  The judgment below is summarily affirmed.  See 1st Cir.                                                               ___          R. 27.1.                    Affirmed.                    Affirmed.                    ________                                          5
