Diaz v. Local No. 241, Transp. Workers Union of Am.

ANICASIA DIAZ, LUDWIG ALONSO, JULIA DeLEON, MARIA GOMEZ,FREDESWINDA MORCIGLIO, MARIOLA TRUSZKOWSKI, and PEDRO QUINONES, Plaintiffs, v. LOCAL NO. 241, TRANSPORT WORKERS UNION OF AMERICA, UNIVERSITY DIVISION,and COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY IN THE CITY OF NEW YORK, Defendants.

17cv8898

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

March 19, 2021

MEMORANDUM & ORDER

WILLIAM H. PAULEY III, Senior United States District Judge:

Seven individuals employed as heavy cleaners by Columbia University—Anicasia Diaz, Ludwig Alonso, Julia DeLeon, Maria Gomez, Fredeswinda Morciglio, Mariola Truszkowski, and Pedro Quinones ("Plaintiffs")—bring this hybrid action under § 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 185 ("hybrid § 301 claim"), against their union, Local No. 241, Transport Workers Union of America, University Division ("Local 241"), and Columbia University in the City of New York ("Columbia"). Plaintiffs contend they were wrongfully denied overtime hours in breach of a collective bargaining agreement between Columbia and Local 241, and that Local 241 breached its duty of fair representation ("DFR") by failing to investigate and remedy Columbia's alleged breach. Columbia moves to dismiss the action for lack of standing under Article III of the United States Constitution. In the alternative, both Local 241 and Columbia move for summary judgment dismissing all claims on the merits. For the reasons that follow, Plaintiffs' claims are dismissed for lack of standing.

BACKGROUND

Unless otherwise noted, the following facts are undisputed. Plaintiffs are, or were, heavy cleaners employed by Columbia and members of Local 241. (Pls.' Counter Statement to Local 241's Statement Pursuant to Local Rule 56.1, ECF No. 95 ("Pls.' Counterstatement to Local 241"), ¶¶ 2, 3, 6, 7, 8 & 11.) Heavy cleaners' job responsibilities include operating motorized equipment to strip and wax floors; cleaning bathrooms and kitchens; washing walls and blackboards; sweeping lobbies, stairwells, sidewalks, steps, and courtyards; moving furniture and supplies; and removing ice and snow. (Pls.' Counter Statement to Columbia's Local Rule 56.1 Statement of Undisputed Material Facts, ECF No. 94 ("Pls.' Counterstatement to Columbia"), ¶ 4.)

Columbia has employed Diaz, DeLeon, Truszkowski, and Quinones for more than twenty years. (Pls.' Counterstatement to Local 241 ¶¶ 3-4, 6, 10 & 11.) Gomez and Morciglio¹ were employed by Columbia for more than twenty years until their retirements. (Pls.' Counterstatement to Columbia ¶¶ 25, 29, 30-31.) Finally, while Alonso continues to be employed by Columbia, he voluntarily withdrew his claims in this case with prejudice after Defendants moved for summary judgment. (Pls.' Mem. of Law in Opp'n to Defs.' Mots. for Summ. J., ECF No. 93 ("Opp'n"), at 1 n.1.)

Local 241 represents certain maintenance and custodial employees at Columbia—including Plaintiffs. (Pls.' Counterstatement to Columbia ¶ 8.) Columbia is a private, not-for-profit institution of higher learning with its main campus in Morningside Heights. (Pls.' Counterstatement to Columbia ¶ 1.)

At all relevant times, Plaintiffs' employment was governed by a series of collective bargaining agreements ("CBAs") between Local 241 and Columbia. Each included an identical provision regarding the distribution of overtime:

All overtime assignments will be distributed as equally as possible by job classification and seniority on a rotating list and appropriately recorded. Lists will be posted in an area accessible to employees. Each appropriate group will decide on the proper administration of such lists.

(Pls.' Counterstatement to Local 241 ¶ 12 ("2008-2013 CBA"); ECF No. 114-1 (2013-2016 CBA); Pls.' Counterstatement to Columbia ¶ 56 (2016-2020 CBA).)

While supervisors at Columbia authorize overtime, overtime hours are distributed by head cleaners—employees of Columbia designated by Local 241 to, among other things, distribute overtime to heavy cleaners. (Pls.' Counterstatement to Local 241 ¶ 79; Opp'n, at 19-20.) To be considered for overtime, heavy cleaners are required to sign up on one or more overtime lists—(1) the area/building list corresponding to a heavy cleaner's regular work assignment; (2) coat check (for special events on campus); (3) machine room; (4) boiler room; (5) snow removal; and (6) labor. (Pls.' Counterstatement to Columbia ¶¶ 64-65.)

While the CBAs require overtime assignments to be distributed as equally as possible, natural disparities arise in the number of overtime hours worked by heavy cleaners. For example, some buildings have fewer overtime opportunities than other buildings. (Pls.' Counterstatement to Local 241 ¶ 25.) To address this disparity, heavy cleaners—including Plaintiffs—are permitted to sign up for other overtime lists in order to access more overtime. (Pls.' Counterstatement to Local 241 ¶ 25.) That said, heavy cleaners—including Plaintiffs—sometimes opt out of certain overtime lists. (See, e.g., Pls.' Counterstatement to Columbia¶¶ 64, 74 (admitting Truszkowski opted out of snow removal list), 75 (admitting Quinones opted out of coat check list).) Further, heavy cleaners must complete specialized training to qualify for certain types of overtime. (Pls.' Counterstatement to Columbia ¶ 66.) And individual heavy cleaners' regular shifts, vacation days, and other leaves of absence may impact their opportunities to work overtime. (Pls.' Counterstatement to Columbia ¶¶ 68-69.) Finally, the CBAs require that overtime be allocated by seniority—meaning that heavy cleaners with greater seniority have more opportunities for overtime. (Lopes Aff. ¶ 30; Pls.' Counterstatement to Columbia ¶ 36; Pls.' Counterstatement to Local 241 ¶ 12.)

If an employee believes that overtime hours are being improperly distributed, the CBAs provide a two-step grievance procedure. (Pls.' Counterstatement to Columbia ¶¶ 39, 62.) This procedure states, in relevant part, that when "any dispute [arises] with regard to the interpretation or application of any of the terms of this agreement:"

Step 1. The employee feeling him/herself aggrieved shall discuss the grievance within five (5) days of the incident giving rise to the grievance with his/her immediate supervisor . . . [and] [s]uch immediate supervisor shall give his/her answer to said grievance within five (5) days. Failure on the part of [Columbia] to answer a grievance within the time limits provided for shall allow [Local 241], at its option, to proceed to the next step.

Step 2. It shall be presumed by [Columbia] that the grievance has been disposed of to the satisfaction of [Local 241] and the employee under Step 1 unless within five (5) days after the expiration of the five (5) day period referred to in Step 1 for the employee's immediate supervisor to give his/her answer, a statement of the existence of a grievance is presented in writing to the head of the department or his/her designated representative in which said employee works.

(Pls.' Counterstatement to Columbia ¶¶ 40, 62.)

The record in this case reveals a tortured history of intermittent complaints by heavy cleaners at Columbia regarding the distribution of overtime. Neither party offers acoherent description of Plaintiffs' grievances or Defendants' responses. And the underlying record is a morass of contradictory recollections and foggy memories containing significant gaps. Nevertheless, this Court dredged the record to reconstruct the following sequence of events.

In August 2008, Diaz, DeLeon, Truszkowski, Morciglio, and Quinones, sent a letter to then-Local 241 President Enzo Rodriguez requesting that he enforce the CBA overtime rules. (Decl. of Mary Ellen Donnelly in Supp. of Columbia's Mot. for Summ. J., ECF No. 92 ("Donnelly Decl."), Ex. 12 ("August 2008 Letter").) Apparently, Rodriguez never responded to the August 2008 Letter. In June 2010, at least some Plaintiffs recall sending another letter to Rodriguez complaining that he neglected to respond to the August 2008 Letter and had failed to correct the inequitable distribution of overtime. (Donnelly Decl. Ex. 13 ("June 2010 Letter").) The June 2010 Letter also asserted:

As per the deficient completion of our August 2008 request, we demand that all rules and specifically [the overtime rules] of the CBA be enforced. As the appropriate group in this matter, we would like the overtime assignment list arranged by seniority and classification, posted near our lockers and or clock stations by manner of whichever location is most visible as determined by ourselves at each appropriate location. On the overtime assignment list, the dates of the rotation shall be clearly stated with all weeks divided evenly as afforded by time and seniority according to the CBA.

(June 2010 Letter.)

Several weeks prior to the June 2010 Letter, Diaz filed a charge with the National Labor Relations Board ("NLRB") against Local 241 claiming that "within the past six months" Local 241 "failed and refused to process the overtime grievance of Anicasia Diaz and other employees, for arbitrary, discriminatory or otherwise invidious reasons." (Pls.' Counterstatement to Columbia ¶ 44.) Diaz did not pursue her charge after it was transferred toan NLRB Region outside of New York, New York. (Pls.' Counterstatement to Columbia ¶¶ 46-47.)

On August 31, 2010, Quinones filed a charge with the NLRB alleging that Local 241 "failed and refused . . . to process a grievance on [his] behalf . . . regarding [Columbia's] violation of [Quinones'] seniority rights and related decisions to assign him overtime." (Pls.' Counterstatement to Columbia ¶¶ 51-52; Lopes Aff. Ex. D, at 4.) On November 23, 2010, the NLRB dismissed Quinones' charge, concluding that "the evidence fail[ed] to establish that [Local 241] violated the [NLRA]." (Pls.' Counterstatement to Columbia ¶ 54.)

Seven years later, on August 15, 2017, Plaintiffs' counsel sent a letter to Local 241 and Columbia claiming that overtime was being improperly distributed to "relatives,...