Ginderske v. Eaton Corp.

Page 803

317 F.Supp.2d 803

Paul GINDERSKE, Plaintiff, v. EATON CORPORATION and Paper, Allied-Industrial, Chemical and Energy Workers International Union AFL-CIO, CLC and Local 6-433, Defendants.

No. 03-10104-BC.

United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Northern Division.

May 12, 2004.

Victor J. Mastromarco, Jr., Cady, Mastromarco, Saginaw, MI, for Plaintiff.

Alan C. Harnisch, Harnisch & Hohauser, Lawrence S. Gadd, Harnisch, Lebow, (Bingham Farms), Bingham Farms, MI, James M. Moore, Gregory, Moore, Detroit, MI, for Defendants.

OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

LAWSON, District Judge.

The plaintiff, Paul Ginderske, was fired for insubordination from his union-protected manufacturing job with defendant Eaton Corporation. His union, Local 6-433 of the Allied-Industrial, Chemical and Energy Workers International Union AFL-CIO, CLC (the Union), challenged the termination through the grievance procedure set forth in the collective bargaining agreement (CBA), but declined to pursue the last step in the process, which was formal arbitration. Thereafter, Ginderske filed the present action in this Court as a so-called "hybrid action" against both his union and his former employer, as he must, contending that Eaton breached the CBA by firing him and the Union breached its duty of fair representation. All defendants have moved for summary judgment. The Court heard arguments on the record on May 4, 2004 and now finds that the plaintiff has not come forth with evidence creating a material fact issue on the essential elements of his claims against either Eaton or the Union, and that the defendants are entitled to judgment in their favor as a matter of law. The motions for summary judgment, therefore, will be granted.

I.

Paul Ginderske claims that Eaton unlawfully fired him for insubordination when he did not abide by instructions given him on the plant floor by a supervisor, but which he had questioned and in the course had sought assistance from a union steward in dealing with his supervisor. Ginderske was represented by the Union, which had entered into a collective bargaining agreement with Eaton. In that CBA, Ginderske relinquished his individual right to judicial relief in favor of the dispute resolution procedure set forth therein as the employee's exclusive remedy. Pl.'s Br. in Resp. to Def.s' Mot. Summ. J. Ex. 6 at 2-4. Normally, a suit of this nature therefore would be barred, but when the employee also contends that his union failed in its fiduciary duty to represent him against the employer, the employee may maintain such a suit under Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 185 (LMRA). See Vaca v. Sipes, 386 U.S. 171, 186, 87 S.Ct. 903, 17 L.Ed.2d 842 (1967) (holding that a "wrongfully discharged employee may bring an action against his employer in the face of a defense based upon the failure to exhaust contractual remedies, provided the employee can prove that the union as bargaining agent breached its duty of fair representation in its handling of the employee's grievance").

The dispute in this case was triggered by incidents that occurred on October 2 and 3, 2002. On those dates, Ginderske was employed at Eaton's engine plant in Saginaw, Michigan as a utility worker, who was assigned generally to various assembly line jobs to take the place of other workers who were sick or on vacation. On that particular shift — the so-called "graveyard shift" from 11:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. — Ginderske was working at "operation ninety" on an assembly line that manufactured cylinder heads. Eaton's Mot. Summ. J. Ex. A, Paul Ginderske Dep. at 32, 36. He initially worked in the foundry at the plant pouring iron when he started there in May 1995. Id. at 34.

A worker assigned to an "operation" station on the assembly line is responsible for overseeing the manufacture of the cylinder head as it passes through the individual station. Operation ninety was where the cam heads were manufactured, passing through a series of brushes at that station. Each operation station is equipped with an alarm and a flashing light. If a problem occurs at a particular station, the station will "alarm out," that is, the flashing light and alarm will activate. When an operation station alarms out, the station worker is required to address the problem. If the problem is not addressed within a certain time period, the machine at the operation station will shut down, which eventually causes the entire assembly line to halt its operation.

Approximately 30 to 45 minutes after the plaintiff started his shift at operation ninety on October 2, 2002, he left his station to get a cup of coffee at the machine repair shop in the building where he was working. He estimated that the repair shop was approximately 30 to 40 yards from his station and that he was gone for five to six minutes. Id. at 39-40. While away from his station, operation ninety "alarmed out" because brushes on the machine needed to be replaced. Apparently, the plaintiff's supervisor, Nick Buckley, walked passed the plaintiff as he was getting a cup of coffee at the repair shop and did not say anything to him. Id. at 42. However, at some point thereafter, it appears that Buckley noticed that the plaintiff's station was sounding its alarm indicating that it needed attention. Buckley then paged the plaintiff over the plant's intercom system. Id. at 40-41. The plaintiff returned to his station where he was confronted by Buckley who, according to the plaintiff, used a "loud tone of voice, kind of angrily" when speaking to him. Buckley told the plaintiff to get another co-worker, Greg Schrank, to change the brushes on his machine and instructed him not to leave his station except on his designated breaks at 1:00 a.m., 3:00 a.m., and 5:00 a.m. Buckley told the plaintiff that if he needed to leave at another time, he must tell another co-worker so that the person could cover the plaintiff's station. Id. at 42-44. The plaintiff asked Buckley if his instructions pertained to all workers or just him. According to the plaintiff, Buckley responded that they pertained only to him. Id. at 48.

The plaintiff notified Mr. Schrank to change the brushes on his machine. While Schrank was changing the brushes, the plaintiff and Buckley continued their conversation about the plaintiff being absent from his station when the alarm sounded. The plaintiff claims he told Buckley that he was being harassed and asked Buckley to call his union representative, committeeman Billy Cork. Id. at 48. According to the plaintiff, Buckley "laughed" about the plaintiff's request and, directing his attention to Schrank, joked about the plaintiff's belief that he was being harassed. Id. at 49. Buckley maintains that he did not call the Union committeeman.

Approximately 45 minutes later, at about 12:30 a.m. on October 3, 2002, the plaintiff again left his station at operation ninety, this time to visit the bathroom. Ibid. The plaintiff claims that he attempted to tell another co-worker that he was leaving, but he could not find anyone working nearby so he left his station unattended. While he was gone, his machine once again alarmed out. Id. at 61. As the plaintiff was returning to his station, he claims that Buckley came at him "screaming" and was "waving his hands and arms." Id. at 55. Buckley stated that he was going to "write up" the plaintiff for not being at his station. Id. at 58. The plaintiff responded that he felt he was being harassed and wanted to speak with his union representative, Mr. Cork. Id. at 58. Buckley told the plaintiff to return to his station and to "start loading parts" onto the assembly line. Id. at 63-64. At this point, another co-worker, Gloria David, approached the plaintiff and reprimanded him for failing to load the parts onto the assembly line. The plaintiff testified in his deposition that he responded that Ms. David should "f* *k that." Id. at 66. Ms. David claimed in her deposition that the plaintiff said "f* *k you." Eaton Mot. Summ. J. Ex. C, Gloria David Dep. at 29-30, 66-67.

Approximately 15 minutes later, at 12:45 a.m., the plaintiff left his station a third time to call Mr. Cork, who was working in another building, because Cork had not appeared as requested. Eaton Mot. Summ. J. Ex. A, Ginderske Dep. at 85-86. While the plaintiff was on the telephone with Cork, Buckley approached him and told him to get off the phone and return to his station. Id. at 86. The plaintiff told Cork over the phone that he needed Cork to come quickly because he believed that Buckley was going to write him up. The plaintiff then got off the phone and returned to his station.

At about 2:30 a.m., Mr. Cork arrived at the plaintiff's building. The plaintiff states that he saw Cork first go into Buckley's office and talk with him. Then Cork came to the plaintiff's station and spoke with the plaintiff. Id. at 90-91. According to the plaintiff, Cork said that he knew that "they" were after the plaintiff and to calm down and he would see what he could do. Id. at 91. Cork testified that Buckley had informed him that the plaintiff may be written up for insubordination. Pl.'s Ex. 3, Billy Cork Dep. at 31-32. Cork did not relay this information to the plaintiff when he talked to him after speaking with Buckley. Id. at 36-37.

The plaintiff remained at operation ninety until 4:30 a.m. when Buckley asked him to work on a different machine in a different area of the plant. Id. at 92. The plaintiff worked on this machine until approximately 6:50 a.m., ten minutes before his shift ended. At that time, Buckley and Cork approached him. Buckley informed the plaintiff that he was being "written up" for insubordination and that he was not to return to the plant until he first reported to the office of human resources. Id. at 93.

The plaintiff and Cork then left the building and went together to the local union office in another section of the plant. There they met...