Public Sector Legal Update: PA Supreme Court Limits Ability of Employees to Seek Damages from Unions in Duty of Fair Representation Claims

By: Mat Widzins and Lauren M. Hoye

A majority of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has held that public employees cannot seek money damages from public sector labor unions when they bring claims alleging that their union, in failing or refusing to advance a grievance, has breached its duty of fair representation (DFR). For these claims, a public employee is instead limited to seeking an order to compel arbitration of the union’s grievance(s).

The case, Gustafson v. AFSCME Council 13, arose out of allegations that the plaintiff’s union mishandled a grievance filed on her behalf. The plaintiff, a public employee who had previously resigned from membership in the union, had requested that a grievance be filed against her employer related to lost overtime opportunities. Unsatisfied with the union’s processing of that grievance, the employee sued the union, alleging a breach of the union’s duty of fair representation. Specifically, she alleged that the union discriminated against her based on her status as a non-member and, as a result, refused to advance the grievance. The employee sought compensatory and punitive money damages from the union. The union argued that the Public Employee Relations Act (PERA) prevented the employee from seeking monetary damages against the union, and further, that the employer, whom she did not sue, was an indispensable party to the lawsuit.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court agreed with AFSCME Council 13, represented by Willig, Williams & Davidson’s Amy Rosenberger and Jessica Caggiano. In so doing, the Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court and reaffirmed what had been long-standing precedent in the Pennsylvania courts regarding DFR claims. Specifically, that when a plaintiff is alleging that their union’s mishandling of a grievance rises to the level of a breach of the DFR, and does not allege any employer participation in that breach, the sole remedy is an order compelling arbitration, and the employer is a necessary party to that claim (and to the arbitration). The court therefore rejected the plaintiff’s assertions that she was entitled to compensatory and/or punitive damages, and that she need not sue the employer.

The Supreme Court reiterated that the union’s duty to fairly represent all members of the bargaining unit it serves arises from the union’s statutory authority under PERA as the exclusive representative of the bargaining unit. In the context of public employment, claims for breach of a union’s duty of fair representation therefore arise from PERA. Unlike its federal equivalents, PERA mandates the arbitration of grievances “arising out of the interpretation of the provisions of a collective bargaining agreement.” Therefore, where a public employee claims a union breached the DFR by not advancing a grievance, the public employee is limited to seeking an order to arbitrate that grievance and cannot pursue money damages in court.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision in Gustafson is a huge victory for public sector unions in Pennsylvania, many of which filed amicus briefs in this case. It reaffirms what the law has been in this area for several decades, and which has been under attack in recent years. Should you have questions about this case and how it applies, please do not hesitate to contact the experienced labor attorneys at Willig, Williams & Davidson.