American Federation of State County and Municipal Employees, Council 81, Local 640 v. Brooks
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE JOHN W. NOBLE VICE CHANCELLOR 417 SOUTH STATE STREET DOVER, DELAWARE 19901 TELEPHONE: (302) 739-4397 FACSIMILE: (302) 739-6179 December 21, 2011 Via LexisNexis File & Serve and First Class Mail Perry F. Goldlust, Esquire Perry F. Goldlust, P.A. 702 King Street, Suite 600 Wilmington, DE 19801 Re: Ms. Alicia A. Brooks 202 Ermine Drive New Castle, DE 19710 American Federation of State County and Municipal Employees, Council 81, Local 640 v. Brooks C.A. No. 5395-VCN Date Submitted: December 9, 2011 Dear Ms. Brooks and Mr. Goldlust: Appellant American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Council 81, Local 640 ecision of the Public Employee according to which the PERB: (1) deferred American Federation of State County and Municipal Employees, Council 81, Local 640 v. Brooks C.A. No. 5395-VCN December 21, 2011 Page 2 arbitration process mandated by the collective bargaining agreement (the was subject to as a member of the Union; and (2) retained jurisdiction over the Charge. This Court has jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to 19 Del. C. ยง 1309(a). The Charge has its origins in a dispute between Brooks and her former The DHSS was a party to the CBA with the Union. The CBA covered Delaware employees holding the position of Certified Nursing Assistant with the DHSS; Brooks was formerly one such employee. In February Unhappy with this turn of events, Brooks challenging her termination. On February 19, 2009, the Union filed a grievance s receipt of a termination letter, for a period of time, the Union did not respond to her inquiries and pleas for further assistance, although the Union later represented her as she continued to pursue the American Federation of State County and Municipal Employees, Council 81, Local 640 v. Brooks C.A. No. 5395-VCN December 21, 2011 Page 3 grievance process.1 Ultimately, she filed the Charge with the PERB alleging that tance and its allegedly shoddy drafting of the initial grievance constituted unfair labor practices. hile 2 Concerning the allegation that the initial grievance was shoddily drafted, the issue within the exclusive province of the contractual grievance and arbitration 3 Because the alleged statutory violation turned upon the resolution of contractual issues, the Hearing Officer deferred the matter, and the Charge was stayed pending exhaustion of the contractual grievance 1 Under the CBA, a grievance could be appealed up to a Step Five Grievance Hearing, after which arbitration could be pursued. Appellant Below-Appellant AFSCME, Council 81, Local Deferral Order, ULP No. 09-08-701) 5-6. The Steps Three, Four, and Five Hearings and, ultimately, the arbitration proceedings in which the Union represented Brooks were all held after she filed the Charge. See id. 2 Id. at 8. 3 Id. American Federation of State County and Municipal Employees, Council 81, Local 640 v. Brooks C.A. No. 5395-VCN December 21, 2011 Page 4 and arbitration process.4 The Hearing Officer noted that the deferral was not a final resolution of the Charge, however, and that the PERB would retain jurisdiction over the Charge to ensure the adequacy of its resolution through the arbitration process.5 which unanimously affirmed it in an Order;6 the Union Order to this Court. In late July 2011, Brooks agreed to a settlement of her grievance claims against the Union and its officers.7 Despite the Settlement, the Union continues to press its appeal and seeks a decision from this Court regarding whether the PERB properly retained jurisdiction over the Charge after deferring the issues related to contract interpretation to the arbitration process. But, the Settlement resolved the claims underlying the Charge. sticiable controversy exist 4 Id. at 10. Id. 6 Appellant Below-Appe 5 -06-669) 5. Letter from Perry F. Goldlust, Esquire, to the Court (Dec. 7, 2011), Attachment (Brooks Settlement Agreement). 7 American Federation of State County and Municipal Employees, Council 81, Local 640 v. Brooks C.A. No. 5395-VCN December 21, 2011 Page 5 8 In order to avoid wasting judicial resources on academic disputes, Delaware law requires that a case not be moot.9 Settlement is one means to resolve a controversy that may render it moot, and, thus, foreclose later attempts to contest pre-settlement rulings.10 Unless an exception to the mootness doctrine can be found, this appeal should be dismissed as moot. The Union relies upon one of the recognized exceptions to the mootness 11 While this is a situation that is likely to recur, and it is understandable that the Union would on over a charge against the Union, in comparable circumstances, a future case would, most likely, not evade review if pursued timely, vigorously, and diligently. 8 Crescent/Mach I Partners, L.P. v. Dr Pepper Bottling Co. of Tex., 962 A.2d 205, 208 (Del. 2008) (quoting Warren v. Moore, 1994 WL 374333, at *2 (Del.Ch. July 6, 1994)). 9 Id. 10 See id. at 209. 11 Gen. Motors Corp. v. New Castle County, 701 A.2d 819, 824 n.5 (Del. 1997). American Federation of State County and Municipal Employees, Council 81, Local 640 v. Brooks C.A. No. 5395-VCN December 21, 2011 Page 6 The instant appeal was pursued timely,12 but due to difficulties serving Brooks, over six months elapsed between the time the appeal was filed and service upon her was perfected.13 Motion for Summary Judgment was set and briefs were timely filed. This Court then issued a letter to the parties questioning whether this Court had jurisdiction to hear the appeal; responses were due 15 days later. The Union responded by the deadline, but Brooks, a pro se litigant, never responded; as a result, this case languished for some time. Recently, the Union informed the Court that Brooks had entered into the Settlement in late July 2011, and that prompted the Court to raise mootness concerns. Although time was lost in this proceeding, considering that the issue presented by the Union is a fairly straightforward, narrow legal issue, it certainly seems capable of resolution in a timely manner before resolution of the underlying 12 A Notice of Appeal was filed one day after the related Order was issued by the PERB. See Notice of Appeal. 13 Brooks apparently contests whether service upon her was ever perfected. See Letter from Alicia A. Brooks to the Court (Oct. 16, 2010). Regardless, the earliest that she was properly served, if at all, was October 9, 2010. See Return of Service. American Federation of State County and Municipal Employees, Council 81, Local 640 v. Brooks C.A. No. 5395-VCN December 21, 2011 Page 7 substantive claims. Therefore, the argued exception does not apply,14 since, as which the alleged harm would not dissipate during the normal time required for resolution of the controversy, the general principles of . . . jurisdiction require that the personal stake in the litigation continue throughout the entirety of the 15 For the foregoing reasons, this appeal is dismissed as moot and the matter is remanded to the PERB. 14 Beyond the issue of mootness, other considerations counsel against resolving this appeal on the merits. It has been about a year since Brooks has filed any papers with this Court or been in any way actively involved with this case. Furthermore, since she has settled with the State of Delaware and the Union, she has little incentive to expend more time and money litigating this abstract point of law. This suggests that the full benefit of the adversary system would not be available in further proceedings before this Court or on an appeal of its decision. See State of -1, 2011 WL 891201, jurisdiction of the administrative body specifically charged with responsibility for public rence in the work of an administrative Id. 15 Sosna v. Iowa, 419 U.S. 393, 402 (1975). It should also be noted that the action challenged by the Union has only superficially been defended in this proceeding. The Court has not had (and does not have) the benefit of that adversarial crucible so accurately characterized as tending to American Federation of State County and Municipal Employees, Council 81, Local 640 v. Brooks C.A. No. 5395-VCN December 21, 2011 Page 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. Very truly yours, /s/ John W. Noble JWN/cap cc: Register in Chancery-K
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
