Rollins v. Community Hospital of San Bernardino, No. 14-55971 (9th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this CasePlaintiff filed suit against the Hospital and the Union under section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. 185, alleging that the Hospital’s failure to allow her to “bump” back to her prior Ward Clerk position violated a 2007 Seniority Agreement and a 2008 collective bargaining agreement (CBA). Plaintiff also alleged that the Union breached its duty of fair representation by failing to pursue her grievance on this issue. Plaintiff settled her suit against the hospital and the district court granted summary judgment to the Union. The court rejected the Union's argument that the Seniority Agreement is inadmissible under the parol evidence rule or was superseded by the 2008 CBA. The court concluded that plaintiff has shown a violation of the Security Agreement and the CBA. The court also concluded that, if plaintiff's evidence is believed, she has shown a violation of the Union’s duty of fair representation. In this case, there is ample evidence showing that the Union acted improperly by failing to put plaintiff's claims through the Union's own formal mechanisms for reviewing the merits of grievances, by including plaintiff in a class action grievance that did not raise her specific claim, and by providing weak or invalid justifications for rejecting her claim. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded for further proceedings.
Court Description: Labor Law. The panel reversed the district court’s order granting summary judgment to defendant union on a claim under § 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act. During a reduction in force, the plaintiff was laid off from her position as a billing coordinator at a hospital. To prevail on her claim against the union in this hybrid fair representation/§ 301 suit, the plaintiff was required to show both that the hospital breached a collective bargaining agreement (“CBA”) and that the union breached its duty of fair representation by failing to pursue her grievance regarding the hospital’s failure to allow her to “bump” back to her prior ward clerk position, rather than be laid off. The plaintiff asserted that this failure violated both a 2008 CBA ROLLINS V. SEIU-UHW 3 and a 2007 side agreement, known as the Seniority Agreement, which had been negotiated on her behalf by a union representative. The panel held that the Seniority Agreement was neither inadmissible under the parol evidence rule nor superseded by the 2008 CBA. The panel concluded that the Seniority Agreement did not conflict with either the 2008 CBA or a 2012 memorandum of understanding through which the union and the hospital implemented the reduction in force. The panel held that the hospital breached both the Seniority Agreement and the CBA. The panel held that the plaintiff also established a triable issue whether the union breached its duty of fair representation by processing her grievance in a perfunctory manner. The plaintiff submitted sufficient evidence that the union never seriously considered her rights under the Seniority Agreement; improperly lumped her with other, non- similarly situated employees; and provided factually contested reasons for rejecting her grievance. The panel remanded the case for further proceedings. Concurring, District Judge Lemelle wrote that in addition to the question whether the union breached its duty of fair representation, the question whether the Seniority Agreement remained in effect after the negotiation of the CBA should also be left to the jury. 4 ROLLINS V. SEIU-UHW
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.