Karo v. San Diego Symphony Orchestra Ass'n
762 F.2d 819, 119 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2951 (1985)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A union's duty of fair representation extends only to employees within the collective bargaining unit it represents, not to union members who are not part of that unit. A non-employee cannot sue as a third-party beneficiary for breach of a collective bargaining agreement if their asserted rights had not vested before the agreement was modified.
Facts:
- Karo, a percussionist, was a member of the Musicians Association of San Diego Local 325 (Local 325) but had not been employed by the San Diego Symphony Orchestra Association (Symphony) since a single concert in 1969.
- A 1979 collective bargaining agreement (CBA) between Local 325 and the Symphony designated the union as the exclusive representative for Symphony musicians and required blind auditions to fill vacancies.
- Karo was never a member of the bargaining unit covered by this agreement.
- In 1980, Karo learned of a potential future opening for a percussionist at the Symphony.
- In February 1982, before a vacancy was officially announced, Local 325 and the Symphony modified the CBA.
- The 1982 modification allowed the Symphony to hire non-contract musicians with six years of service without holding an audition.
- Subsequently, the Symphony hired another musician, Mr. Plank, for the percussion chair under this new provision, denying Karo the opportunity to audition.
Procedural Posture:
- Karo filed a complaint against Local 325 and the Symphony in a federal district court under § 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act.
- The complaint alleged that Local 325 breached its duty of fair representation and that the Symphony breached the collective bargaining agreement.
- The district court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss, holding that Karo lacked standing to bring the suit.
- Karo (appellant) appealed the dismissal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
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 member who is not an employee within a collective bargaining unit have standing to sue the union for breach of the duty of fair representation and the employer for breach of the collective bargaining agreement?
Opinions:
Majority - Boochever, J.
No. A union member who is not an employee within the collective bargaining unit lacks standing to bring a hybrid suit for breach of the duty of fair representation and breach of the collective bargaining agreement. The court reasoned that a union's statutory duty of fair representation is owed exclusively to the members of the employee bargaining unit. Citing Supreme Court precedent in Allied Chemical, which held that the duty does not extend to retirees, the court concluded it follows that no such duty would be owed to an individual like Karo who was never a member of the unit. Because Local 325 owed no duty to Karo, he lacks standing to sue for its breach. Furthermore, Karo lacks standing to sue the Symphony as a third-party beneficiary of the original CBA. The court found no evidence in the contract's language to suggest the audition provision was intended to benefit non-employee union members. Even if Karo could be considered a third-party beneficiary, the union and employer retained the power to modify the agreement. Under the Restatement (Second) of Contracts, this power to modify exists until a beneficiary's rights have vested through, for example, justifiable reliance. Karo alleged no such vesting of rights before the 1982 modification, and therefore, he cannot enforce the terms of the original, unmodified agreement.
Analysis:
This decision establishes a clear boundary for standing in hybrid § 301 labor suits, affirming that the duty of fair representation is coextensive with the bargaining unit itself. It prevents individuals outside the employee-employer relationship, even if they are union members, from challenging the collective bargaining process. The ruling also reinforces the principle that parties to a CBA have the flexibility to modify their agreement, and potential third-party beneficiaries cannot challenge such modifications unless their rights under the contract have already vested. This holding protects the stability and autonomy of the collective bargaining relationship between employers and unions.
