Patterson

Opinion by Judge THOMPSON; Dissent by Judge NOONAN.

William L. Patterson appeals from the district court’s summary judgment in favor of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local 959 (Local 959). Patterson contends Local 959 breached its duty of fair representation while assisting him in his grievance and arbitration proceedings. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

FACTS

Matanuska Maid Dairy (Mat-Maid) employed Patters on for approximately seven years as a driver and delivery person. One morning during his employment with MabMaid, on April 30, 1986, Patterson clocked into work and then drove his delivery truck to Local 959’s offices to speak with a union representative. Patterson waited for the representative in a restaurant which was in the same building as Local 959’s offices. When the representative did not appear, Patterson left for his first delivery. As Patterson was leaving the parking lot, a pickup truck struck him from behind. When Patterson returned to work after his deliveries, Mat-Maid informed him that he was terminated for cause.

Mat-Maid cited three reasons for the termination: gross disobedience, being in a second accident…

dissenting:

On the Union’s first motion for summary judgment the district court ruled in the Union’s favor, except as follows:

Docket No. 25, Affidavit of Edwin R. Conyers at Exhibit S at 14.

It appears that the arbitrator would have considered medical evidence if it had been offered, and might have determined that a sanction short of dismissal was appropriate if the medical evidence explained Patterson’s behavior and offered significant hope that with specific treatment the behavior would not reoccur. While determining appropriate witnesses is certainly a matter of judgment, the Court hesitates to find that failure to call a treating physician was not irrational, or a reckless disregard of Patterson’s rights, without some explanation in the record of the decision not to call medical witnesses. In the absence of such an explanation, a trial would appear warranted.

The Union renewed its motion submitting the affidavit of Edwin R. Conyers, the business agent who had represented Patterson in the arbitration. Conyers swore as follows:

Patterson replied to this motion with his own affidavit, in which he swore to the contrary:

The district court then ruled on the second motion…