Unpublished Dispositionnotice: Sixth Circuit Rule 24(c) States That Citation of Unpublished Dispositions is Disfavored Except for Establishing Res Judicata, Estoppel, or the Law of the Case and Requires Service of Copies of Cited Unpublished Dispositions of the Sixth Circuit, 907 F.2d 150 (6th Cir. 1989)Annotate this Case
United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
July 3, 1990.
On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, 88-0397, Mauas, D.J.
N.D. Ohio .
871 F.2d 1087, APPEAL AFTER REMAND.
Before KRUPANSKY and ALAN E. NORRIS, Circuit Judges, and WENDELL A. MILES, Senior District Judge* .
Plaintiff-appellant Sam Genco has appealed summary judgment entered by the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio for defendants-appellees United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Workers of America, Local 1005 (Local 1005) and Roger Montgomery, in his official capacity as shop chairman of Local 1005 in this action alleging violation of Genco's rights under Title I of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (LMRDA).
Sam Genco, who is and has been a member of Local 1005, and the UAW bargaining unit, is an electrician, employed by General Motors Corporation (GM) at its Parma, Ohio stamping plant. GM, UAW, and Local 1005 are parties to the relevant labor agreements. At all times relevant to this action, Roger Montgomery was the shop chairman of Local 1005. GM, pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement, had established a program providing for health and safety training classes to be taught by hourly workers from local GM plants. Local UAW officers were given discretion to select instructors for the classes. Instructors remained classified in the jobs they held prior to their selection and were paid wages according to those classifications while they worked full time on safety training. In December, 1985, Genco was one of six workers assigned to be a safety instructor at the Parma GM plant.
In 1986, GM and Local 1005 were at odds about the number of safety instructors required to effectively implement GM's safety programs. GM was intent upon reducing the number to four while Montgomery and the union membership adopted a policy position to rotate the available teaching hours among all six safety instructors who would, as a result of the reduced demands upon their teaching hours, be required to work their regularly classified job assignments part time. GM compromised its position and accepted the union's demands. Genco, in his pleadings and affidavits before the court, has not denied that he openly objected to this compromise agreement won by Montgomery's efforts on behalf of the union. As a result of Genco's campaign vociferously condemning the bargained agreement, GM threatened to withdraw from its compromised position. It is undisputed that, as a result of appellant's vocal objectives, Montgomery and other union officials lost faith in Genco.
Upon his reelection, which Genco opposed, Montgomery requested GM to remove Genco as safety instructor, which it did on June 3, 1987. Genco was permanently returned to his regular job as an electrician, but he has not denied that his union membership rights and his job classification were unaffected. Genco has continued to participate fully in the affairs of Local 1005 and has regularly attended union meetings. He ceased only to enjoy the niceties of the safety instructor's position.
Genco filed this action, on February 12, 1988, against Local 1005, Montgomery, and GM, alleging that his removal from the position as a safety director violated his rights under the "free speech" provisions of Sec. 101(a) (2) of the LMRDA. GM filed an answer, but Local 1005 and Montgomery filed a motion for summary judgment. After several intervening procedural events, the district court granted summary judgment for defendants.
The issue on appeal is whether the Supreme Court's holdings in Finnegan v. Leu, 456 U.S. 431, 102 S. Ct. 1867, 72 L. Ed. 2d 239 (1982), in which it was determined that elected union officials were free to replace appointed union staff members and employees at will, extend to a person in Genco's position. Genco's undisputed, disruptive activities endangering a bargained-for agreement demonstrates that he was in a position to adversely affect union policies and consequently, this case falls within the four corners of Finnegan.
In light of the above facts and of this court's holding in Cehaich v. International Union UAW, 710 F.2d 234 (6th Cir. 1983), appellants' contentions must be found to have no merit. Accordingly, the summary judgment in favor of defendants-appellees UAW, Local 1005 and Roger Montgomery is AFFIRMED for the reasons stated in the memorandum opinion of the district court filed on August 21, 1989.
The Honorable Wendell A. Miles, Senior United States District Judge for the Western District of Michigan, sitting by designation