Wright v. Merk

118 F.Supp.3d 1228

Charles G. WRIGHT, Plaintiff,

v.John MERK and Jane Doe Merk, husband and wife and their marital community, if any, and International Association of Sheet Metal, Air, Rail, and Transportation Workers, Local 55 (Smart), Defendants.

No. 4:14–CV–5090–RMP.

United States District Court, E.D. Washington.

Signed July 28, 2015.

Michael J. Davidson, Scott M. Kinshella, Davidson Law Center, Pasco, WA, for Plaintiff.

Jacob H. Black, Andrew G. Lukes, Robblee Detwiler & Black PLLP, Seattle, WA, for Defendants.

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT

ROSANNA MALOLTF PETERSON, Chief Judge.

BEFORE THE COURT is Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 15, and Plaintiff's Motion to Amend Complaint, ECF No. 23. The Court heard oral argument on the motions on July 23, 2015, in Richland, WA. Attorney Scott M. Kinshella appeared on behalf of Plaintiff Charles G. Wright, and attorney Jacob H. Black appeared on behalf of Defendants John and Jane Doe Merk, and International Association of Sheet Metal, Air, Rail, and Transportation Works, Local 55. The Court has reviewed the motions, considered the parties' arguments, and is fully informed.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Charles Wright¹ was and is a member of International Association of Sheet Metal, Air, Rail, and Transportation Workers Local # 55 ("SMART Local # 55"), a labor union operating in Washington and Idaho. ECF No. 19 at 1. Beginning in March 2010, through July 3, 2014, Mr. Wright served as a Union Organizer for SMART Local # 55. Wright Dep., ECF No. 17–1 at 21–22. Mr. Wright's position as a Union Organizer was subsidized by the International Association of Sheet Metal, Air, Rail, and Transportation Workers ("International"): SMART Local # 55 paid half of his salary, and International paid the other half. Wright Dep., ECF No. 31–1 at 13; ECF No. 17–1 at 14; Merk. Decl., ECF No. 18 at 3–4.

Mr. Wright was an at-will employee who served a one-year, renewable term of employment. Wright Decl., ECF No. 19 at 2; Merk Dep., ECF No. 21–1 at 60. International's constitution states that a local organizer "serve[s] at the discretion of the business manager." ECF No. 18–1, Ex. A at 71. Mr. Wright's term was renewed five successive years. Wright Decl., ECF No. 19 at 2. Mr. Wright states that, when he was hired, the applicable pay structure was explained to him "in a way that made it clear that [he] was under a one year contract which could be renewed for other one year terms with an increase in pay." Wright Decl., ECF No. 19 at 2. He understood this term structure to mean "that each March [his] employment would be renewed for another year term assuming [he] was doing [his] job." Wright Decl., ECF No. 19 at 2.

Mr. Wright alleges that when he was appointed one of the International Organizers, Sean Mahoney, gave him a copy of the 2009 Policy for the Local Union Subsidized Organizers Program and "pointed out the application of its provisions to local organizers and to Local 55." Wright Decl., ECF No. 19 at 3–4; EC However, Defendant John Merk contends that "Local 55 did not create the policy, did not distribute the policy to its employees, and did not inform its employees that the policy applied to them." Merk. Decl., ECF No. 18 at 6–7. The policy states:

The Local Union and the International Association, over time, will invest large sums of money training, educating, and outfitting the subsidized local union organizer. The knowledge and skills gained by the organizer over a period of years is invaluable to our organization. This is not an investment to be taken lightly. Obviously, when a local union Subsidized Organizer is not doing the assigned duties, the Business Manager may take disciplinary action, up to and including termination.

ECF No. 18–1, Ex. D at 13 (emphasis in original). Additionally, the policy states that "[t]he selection of the organizer by the local union is a critical step in the success of an organizing program and should be undertaken without personal or political motivation." ECF No. 18–1, Ex. D at 9.

As a Union Organizer, Mr. Wright engaged in picketing and handbilling, promoting SMART Local # 55. Wright Dep., ECF No. 17–1 at 54–64. He worked to incorporate new targets, or labor forces, into the Union, sometimes engaging directly with nonorganized employees, and sometimes engaging upper management regarding recognizing the Union. Wright Dep., ECF No. 17–1 at 54–64. He states that all of his decisions regarding who to target, where to picket or handbill, and the content of the handbills, had to be approved by either the International Organizer Sean Mahoney or SMART Local # 55's Business Manager / Financial Secretary, John Merk. Wright Decl., ECF No. 19 at 7 ("I had no control over the decision-making process."); Wright Dep., ECF No. 17–1 at 54–64.² Mr. Merk states that Mr. Wright "played a significant role in developing and implementing Local 55's organizing strategy.... In accomplishing these tasks, Wright often consulted with both [Merk] and the International's organizer for our region, Sean Mahoney." Merk Decl., ECF No. 18 at 4. However, Mr. Merk described Mr. Wright's position as a Union Organizer as being "in a policy-implementing level," as opposed to a "policy-making" position. Merk Dep., ECF No. 21–1 at 75.

In May 2014, Mr. Wright decided to run for the position of Business Manager / Financial Secretary. Wright Decl., ECF No. 19 at 6. Mr. Wright ran against the incumbent, John Merk. Wright Decl., ECF No. 19 at 5–6; Merk Decl., ECF No. 18 at 4. In so doing, Mr. Wright campaigned under the slogan "New People with New Ideas," on a slate with two other candidates: Mark Born, who successfully ran for Tri–Cities Business Agent, and Tracey Henderson, who unsuccessfully ran for Boise Business Agent. ECF 17, Ex. D.

While campaigning, Mr. Wright was openly critical of Mr. Merk's performance as the incumbent Business Manager. Wright Dep., ECF No. 17, Ex. A at 84, 91–92. He stated that Mr. Merk didn't "have a future in this union," that he "talks down" about the members, and that he was "weakening [the] organizing program." Wright Dep., ECF No. 17, Ex. A at 84. He spoke critically of Mr. Merk's budget decisions, his decision to reduce organizing costs, and the fact that the telephones at the union hall often went unanswered. Wright Dep., ECF No. 17, Ex. A at 91–92. He promised, if he was elected, to hire more Union Organizers, to require the Business Representatives to spend more time in the field, to hire a secretary to answer the phones, to have quarterly staff meetings, and to hire two additional employees. Wright Dep., ECF No. 17, Ex. A at 91–92.

Mr. Merk narrowly defeated Mr. Wright in the election on June 24, 2014. Wright Decl., ECF No. 19 at 6. On July 3, 2014, Mr. Merk terminated Mr. Wright's employment as a Union Organizer. Wright Decl., ECF No. 19 at 7; Merk Decl., ECF No. 18 at 5. According to Mr. Wright, Mr. Merk told him that he was terminating Mr. Wright because he ran against him in the election. Wright Decl., ECF No. 19 at 7. Defendants do not contend that Mr. Wright was performing his duties unsatisfactorily. Instead, Mr. Merk admits:

In my opinion, to lead Local 55 effectively, I need a professional staff that supports my policies. I felt that by running against me that Wright had exhibited that he was disloyal to me and to my leadership. The members voted for me rather than Wright. I took this as a mandate to implement my policies and plans for Local 55. Since Wright had campaigned against me and my policies, I did not have confidence that he could work cooperatively with me to achieve my goals for Local 55. In light of Wright's statements during the election, I no longer believed that Wright was capable of working with me in my administration and carrying out the membership's mandate.

Merk Decl., ECF No. 18 at 5–6.

Mr. Wright contends that he was never informed by anyone at SMART Local # 55 or International that his employment might be terminated if he ran against Mr. Merk and lost. Wright Decl., ECF No. 19 at 5–6. Mr. Merk admits that he never told Mr. Wright that if his campaign was unsuccessful, he would be terminated. Merk Dep., ECF No. 21–1 at 48.

Mr. Wright filed a complaint in Franklin County Superior Court on August 21, 2014. ECF No. 2–1.³ The complaint alleges three causes of action based on Mr. Wright's termination: (1) wrongful termination / retaliatory discharge in violation of public policy; (2) breach of implied contract; and (3) discriminatory discharge in violation of RCW 42.17A.495. ECF No. 2–1. All three causes of action are based on Washington state law. ECF No. 2–1.

Defendants move for summary judgment on all three causes of action as preempted by federal labor law. ECF No. 15. Mr. Wright concedes that his first and third causes of action are preempted and withdraws them. ECF No. 20 at 3. Mr. Wright contends that his second cause of action claiming a breach of implied contract is not preempted. ECF No. 20 at 4. He moves to amend his complaint to include two additional federal causes of action based on §§ 101–102 of the Labor–Management Reporting and Disclosure Act ("LMRDA") and § 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act ("LMRA"). ECF No. 23.

DISCUSSION

A. Motion for Summary Judgment

Summary judgment is appropriate when the moving party establishes that there are no genuine issues of material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). If the moving party demonstrates the absence of a genuine issue of material fact, the burden then shifts to the non-moving party to set out specific facts showing a genuine issue for trial. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323–25, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). A genuine issue of material fact exists if sufficient evidence supports the claimed factual dispute, requiring "a jury or judge to resolve the parties' differing versions of the truth at trial." T.W. Elec. Serv., Inc. v. Pac....