Air Line Pilots Association, International v. O’Neil
113 L. Ed. 2d 51, 111 S. Ct. 1127 (1991)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A union breaches its duty of fair representation if its actions are arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad faith. A union's actions are arbitrary only if, in light of the factual and legal landscape at the time of the union's actions, its behavior is so far outside a 'wide range of reasonableness' as to be irrational.
Facts:
- Continental Airlines, Inc. (Continental) filed for bankruptcy and unilaterally reduced its pilots' salaries and benefits by more than half.
- In response, the Air Line Pilots Association, International (ALPA) called a strike that lasted over two years.
- During the strike, Continental continued operations by hiring replacement pilots and re-employing striking pilots who crossed the picket line.
- Continental posted a bid for a large number of future vacancies (the '85-5 bid'), for which both striking and working pilots applied.
- Continental initially accepted bids from both groups but then awarded all positions to the working pilots, challenging the strikers' bids.
- ALPA negotiated a back-to-work settlement with Continental to end the strike.
- The settlement agreement allocated the disputed 85-5 bid positions between returning strikers and working pilots, giving some initial preference to the working pilots but preserving seniority for strikers going forward.
Procedural Posture:
- A class of former striking pilots (O'Neill, et al.) sued ALPA in the U.S. District Court, alleging a breach of the duty of fair representation.
- The District Court granted summary judgment in favor of ALPA, finding no breach of duty.
- The pilots appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
- The Court of Appeals reversed the District Court, holding that a jury could find ALPA's conduct was arbitrary because the settlement left the striking pilots worse off than if they had simply surrendered.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the Court of Appeals' decision.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a union breach its duty of fair representation in negotiating a strike settlement if the resulting agreement is less favorable to striking employees than an unconditional surrender to the employer would have been?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Stevens
No, a union does not breach its duty of fair representation simply because a negotiated settlement is less favorable than an unconditional surrender might have been. The tripartite standard from Vaca v. Sipes—prohibiting arbitrary, discriminatory, or bad-faith conduct—applies to all union activities, including contract negotiation. For a union's action to be considered arbitrary, it must be wholly 'irrational' or so far outside a 'wide range of reasonableness' that it cannot be justified. A court's review of a union's performance must be 'highly deferential' and should not second-guess the union's judgment with the benefit of hindsight. In this case, ALPA's decision to accept the settlement was not irrational because it avoided the costs and risks of major litigation over the disputed job vacancies, provided certain and prompt access to a share of the new jobs, and was advantageous to a significant number of pilots who chose severance pay. The compromise between the claims of striking and working pilots was a rational allocation and not invidious discrimination.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies the 'arbitrary' prong of the duty of fair representation test, particularly in the context of contract negotiation. By establishing a highly deferential 'wide range of reasonableness' standard, the Court makes it substantially more difficult for union members to challenge the substance of a negotiated agreement. This ruling protects unions from being sued for making difficult strategic choices and compromises during bargaining, so long as their decisions are not completely irrational or made in bad faith. It reinforces the federal policy of allowing parties in a labor dispute wide latitude in negotiations, limiting judicial intervention to only the most egregious union conduct.
