William Michael Jones v. Union Pacific Railroad Company, United Transportation Union

Caution
92 Daily Journal DAR 9216·968 F.2d 937·1992 WL 148196·140 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2709·7 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 1175
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJuly 1, 199291-35075California2,674 words

Opinion

Opinion

Goodwin, J.

William Michael Jones appeals a summary judgment in favor of United Transportation Union (the “Union”) and the Union Pacific Railroad Company (the “Company”). The district court rejected Jones’ claims of breach of the duty of fair representation against the Union, breach of contract against the Company, and equitable estoppel against both. We affirm iri part, reverse in part, and remand.

Jones began working for the Company in 1973, first as a trainman and later as a conductor. Jones is a member of the Union. A collective bargaining agreement (the “CBA”), negotiated by the Union, exists between the Company and its employees.

In 1987, the parties to the CBA added a provision allowing Company employees to take a two-year leave of absence from the Company to work for AmTrak. Employees could return any time within the two years. However, for employees whose leaves of absence extended beyond two years, the provision set out certain conditions for returning to the Company. On April 29, 1987, Jones took a leave of absence from the Company to work for AmTrak.

Jones’ leave of absence extended beyond two years. Before the expiration of two years, however, Jones had understood through…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.