the City of Fort Worth, and the City of Fort Worth Firefighters' and Police Officers' Civil Service Commission v. Samuel Davidsaver ( 2010 )

COURT OF APPEALS
SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS
FORT WORTH
NO. 2-09-458-CV
THE CITY OF FORT WORTH, AND APPELLANTS
THE CITY OF FORT WORTH
FIREFIGHTERS’ AND POLICE
OFFICERS’ CIVIL SERVICE
COMMISSION
V.
SAMUEL DAVIDSAVER APPELLEE
------------
FROM THE 153RD DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY
------------
OPINION
------------
I. INTRODUCTION
Appellants City of Fort W orth and City of Fort Worth Firefighters’ and
Police Officers’ Civil Service Commission bring this interlocutory appeal
challenging the trial court’s order denying their plea to the jurisdiction. In a
single issue, appellants argue that appellee Samuel Davidsaver’s claims
stemming from the scoring of his police officer promotional exam may be raised
only by the Fort Worth Police Officers Association and that he lacks standing
to pursue these claims individually in district court. Because we agree that
Officer Davidsaver does not have standing to sue appellants, we reverse the
trial court’s order and dismiss Officer Davidsaver’s claims against appellants for
lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
II. BACKGROUND
Officer Davidsaver, a sergeant with the Fort Worth Police Department, sat
for the department’s promotional exam for the rank of lieutenant on September
22, 2009. According to Officer Davidsaver, the notice of the exam published
by the City of Fort Worth Firefighters’ and Police Officers’ Civil Service
Commission (the “Commission”) stated that bonus points for seniority would
be added to each candidate’s exam score pursuant to the guidelines of the local
government code. However, when the final test scores were posted, his bonus
points were calculated instead according to the procedures contained in the
Meet and Confer Agreement between the City of Fort Worth and the Fort Worth
Police Officers Association (the “Agreement”), not the local government code.
Officer Davidsaver contends that as a result, he ranked lower on the list of
promotion candidates than he would have ranked had the local government
code’s bonus points system been applied.
2
Believing that his final test score had been detrimentally affected by the
change in bonus score calculation procedures, Officer Davidsaver and his
attorney sent a letter to the Fort Worth Police Officers Association (the
“Association”) on October 19, 2009, asserting that seniority bonus points
should have been allocated to him under the local government code instead of
the Agreement. The Association forwarded Officer Davidsaver’s complaint to
its Dispute Resolution Committee, which informed him that it would meet to
review his complaint on November 11, 2009.
Before this meeting could take place, Officer Davidsaver sued the City,
the Commission, and the Association, requesting a judgment declaring that the
provisions of the local government code, and not the Agreement, applied to his
promotional exam. Officer Davidsaver also requested a temporary restraining
order and an injunction preventing the defendants from applying the
Agreement’s provisions to the exam results and from promoting any candidates
on the basis of exam scores calculated under the Agreement’s provisions. The
City and the Commission filed a plea to the jurisdiction challenging Officer
Davidsaver’s standing to sue on November 5, 2009. The Association’s Dispute
Resolution Committee held its meeting on November 11, 2009, and it sent
Officer Davidsaver’s counsel a letter the next day informing him that it had
voted against taking any further action on Officer Davidsaver’s complaint. The
3
trial court denied the City and the Commission’s plea to the jurisdiction in a
written order dated December 7, 2009.1 The City and the Commission now
appeal.2
III. LAW AND APPLICATION TO FACTS
A. Local Government Code and Collective Bargaining Agreements
Chapter 143 of the local government code governs municipal civil service
for firefighters and police officers in Texas. Tex. Loc. Gov’t Code Ann.
§§ 143.001–.363 (Vernon 2008 & Supp. 2009). Its purpose is “to secure
efficient fire and police departments composed of capable personnel who are
free from political influence and who have permanent employment tenure as
public servants.” Id. § 143.001(a). A fundamental principle of civil service is
that appointments must be made according to merit and fitness. Klinger v. City
of San Angelo, 902 S.W.2d 669, 671 (Tex. App.—Austin 1995, writ denied).
One critical aspect of civil service protection is the right to seek promotion by
way of competitive examinations. Lee v. City of Houston, 807 S.W.2d 290,
295 (Tex. 1991). Chapter 143 provides a system for classification of police
1
… That same day, the trial court also issued written orders denying
Officer Davidsaver’s applications for a temporary restraining order and a
temporary injunction.
2
… The Association did not join appellants in filing their plea to the
jurisdiction and is not a party to this appeal.
4
officers through the administration of promotional examinations. See Tex. Loc.
Gov’t Code Ann. §§ 143.021–.038.
Chapter 143 also allows a municipality the size of Fort Worth to exercise
local control over terms and conditions of police officer employment. See id.
§§ 143.301–.313.3 This local control, however, extends only to those terms
and conditions on which the city and an association that is recognized as the
sole and exclusive bargaining agent for all police officers in the municipality
agree. See id. § 143.303(a). On November 16, 2006, the Fort Worth City
Council adopted a proposition authorizing the City to recognize an employee
association as a sole and exclusive bargaining agent for the municipal police
officers and authorizing the City to make agreements with the employee
association as provided by state law.4 Finally, on January 30, 2007, the city
3
… This subchapter of Chapter 143, Subchapter I, applies to
municipalities with a population of 460,000 or more that operate under a city
manager form of government. The parties do not dispute that Fort Worth
qualifies. See U.S. Census Bureau, U.S. Dep’t of Commerce, Profiles of
General Demographic Characteristics: 2000 Census of Population and Housing:
T e x a s 7 1 3 ( 2 0 0 1 ) , a v a i l a b l e a t
http://www.census.gov/prod/cen2000/dp1/2kh48.pdf (reporting Fort Worth’s
total population as 534,694); Fort Worth, Tex., Code Part I, ch. 5, § 1 (1986)
(requiring the city council to appoint a city manager, who shall be the chief
administrative and executive officer of the city).
4
… As required by the local government code, the resolution adopting this
proposition was preceded by an election at which all qualified voters of Fort
Worth could vote on the proposition. The city council canvassed the results of
the election and found that the proposition had passed by a majority of the
5
council passed a resolution recognizing the Association as the sole and
exclusive bargaining agent for all Fort Worth police officers. See id.
§ 143.304(a).5
B. The Meet and Confer Agreement
Thereafter, on November 11, 2008, the Association and the City signed
the Meet and Confer Agreement. Article 15 of the Agreement addresses
promotions in officer classification, and section 4 of that article specifically
addresses additional points added to promotional exam test scores for the ranks
of lieutenant and captain according to the level of the candidate’s education
and to the candidate’s number of years in rank—one point for each complete
year that the officer has served in the current classification. Section 143.033
of the local government code, however, adds one point for each year of
seniority as a classified police officer in the department without regard to
votes cast. See id. § 143.3015.
5
… Section 143.304 provides that the public employer may recognize an
association that submits a petition signed by a majority of the paid police
officers in the municipality, excluding the head and assistant department heads
of the department, as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent for all of the
covered police officers unless recognition of the association is withdrawn by a
majority of the covered police officers. See id. This resolution recited that the
Association had presented a petition, validly signed by a majority of the paid
police officers, requesting the Association to be recognized as the sole and
exclusive bargaining agent on behalf of all Fort Worth police officers. Fort
Worth, Tex., Res. 3451-01-2007 (Jan. 30, 2007).
6
number of years in each rank, and it does not add points for educational
degrees. See id. § 143.033(b). Officer Davidsaver argued in his letter to the
Association and in his lawsuit that under the terms of Article 15, the
Agreement’s point system was not yet in effect at the time he took the exam
on September 22, 2009; therefore, the point system of the local government
code should have been applied to his exam score.6
C. Standing to Sue Under the Agreement
In a single issue, appellants contend that the trial court has no jurisdiction
over Officer Davidsaver’s suit because only the Association has the right to
assert claims against appellants that arise under the Agreement. They argue
that because Officer Davidsaver is not a party to the Agreement, he has no
standing to complain of a breach of the Agreement or to demand enforcement
6
… Article 15, section 3B states,
Effective upon the expiration or earlier exhaustion of any
promotional eligibility list for sergeant, Lieutenant[,] or Captain in
existence on October 1, 2009, an Officer will not be eligible to take
a promotional eligibility examination for promotion to sergeant,
Lieutenant[,] or Captain unless the Officer has served in the
Department in the next lower classification . . . for at least three (3)
years immediately before the date the promotional eligibility
examination is held.
Officer Davidsaver’s position below was that the September 2009 exam
promotional eligibility list had not expired or been exhausted before October 1,
2009, so the Agreement should be interpreted to read that the September 2009
exams would be scored according to the local government code, not the
Agreement.
7
of its provisions. Appellants assert that the trial court failed to recognize
Officer Davidsaver’s lack of standing to challenge actions taken under the
Agreement and therefore erred by denying their plea to the jurisdiction.
1. Standard of Review
A plea to the jurisdiction challenges the trial court’s authority to determine
the subject matter of the action. Tex. Dep’t of Transp. v. Jones, 8 S.W.3d
636, 638 (Tex. 1999). Whether a trial court has subject matter jurisdiction and
whether a pleader has alleged facts that affirmatively demonstrate the trial
court’s subject matter jurisdiction are questions of law that we review de novo.
Tex. Dep’t of Parks & Wildlife v. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d 217, 226 (Tex. 2004);
Tex. Natural Res. Conservation Comm’n v. IT-Davy, 74 S.W.3d 849, 855 (Tex.
2002). The determination of whether a trial court has subject matter
jurisdiction begins with the pleadings. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d at 226. The
plaintiff has the burden to plead facts affirmatively showing that the trial court
has jurisdiction. Tex. Ass’n of Bus. v. Tex. Air Control Bd., 852 S.W.2d 440,
446 (Tex. 1993); Univ. of N. Tex. v. Harvey, 124 S.W.3d 216, 220 (Tex.
App.—Fort Worth 2003, pet. denied). We construe the pleadings liberally in
favor of the pleader, look to the pleader’s intent, and accept as true the factual
allegations in the pleadings. See Miranda, 133 S.W.3d at 226, 228; City of
8
Fort Worth v. Crockett, 142 S.W.3d 550, 552 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2004,
pet. denied).
If a plea to the jurisdiction challenges the existence of jurisdictional facts,
we consider relevant evidence submitted by the parties when necessary to
resolve the jurisdictional issues raised, as the trial court is required to do. See
Bland Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Blue, 34 S.W.3d 547, 555 (Tex. 2000) (confining the
evidentiary review to evidence that is relevant to the jurisdictional issue). We
take as true all evidence favorable to the nonmovant and indulge every
reasonable inference and resolve any doubts in the nonmovant’s favor. Miranda,
133 S.W.3d at 228. If the evidence creates a fact question regarding the
jurisdictional issue, then the trial court cannot grant the plea to the jurisdiction,
and the fact question will be resolved by the fact finder. Id. at 227–28; Bland,
34 S.W.3d at 555. If the relevant evidence is undisputed or fails to raise a fact
question on the jurisdictional issue, however, the trial court rules on the plea to
the jurisdiction as a matter of law. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d at 227–28; Bland, 34
S.W.3d at 555.
2. Interpreting the Intent of the Agreement
Officer Davidsaver argues that the trial court did not err by denying
appellants’ plea to the jurisdiction because the Agreement itself contemplates
9
that police officers have standing under the Agreement. He points to Article 19
of the Agreement, titled “Complete Agreement,” which reads as follows:
Section 1. The Parties agree that each has had the full and
unrestricted right and opportunity to make, advance, and discuss
all matters properly within the province of bargaining for a Meet
and Confer agreement. This Agreement constitutes the full and
complete Agreement of the Parties and there are no others, oral or
written, except as herein contained. No alteration, amendment or
variation of this Agreement’s terms shall bind the Parties unless
made, executed and voted on by the Parties as required by
Subchapter I of chapter 143 of the TLGC. A failure of the City or
Officer[7 ] to insist in any one or more instances upon performance
of any terms or condition of this Agreement shall not be considered
as a waiver or relinquishment of the right of the City or the
Association to future performance of any such term or condition,
and the obligations of the City and the Association to such future
performance shall continue in full force and effect. [Emphasis
supplied.]
Officer Davidsaver contends that the plain meaning of this provision gives police
officers the authority to insist upon the performance of the Agreement, so
police officers must have standing to sue under the Agreement.
Our primary concern when interpreting a contract is to ascertain and give
effect to the parties’ intent. Perry Homes v. Cull, 258 S.W.3d 580, 606 (Tex.
2008), cert. denied, 129 S. Ct. 952 (2009). We therefore focus on the
7
… The Agreement defines an “Officer” as a sworn police officer
employed in the City of Fort Worth Police Department who is covered by the
Agreement pursuant to Subchapter I of Chapter 143 of the local government
code. See Section III.A., supra.
10
language used in the contract because that is the best indication of the parties’
intent. See id. We examine the entire contract in an effort to harmonize and
effectuate all of its provisions so that none are rendered meaningless. Seagull
Energy E & P, Inc. v. Eland Energy, Inc., 207 S.W.3d 342, 345 (Tex. 2006).
Therefore, we do not give controlling effect to any single provision; instead, we
read all of the provisions in light of the entire agreement. See id.
The Agreement itself is clear: the definition of “Parties” refers only to the
City and the Association, not to police officers.8 The Agreement’s preamble
states that the Agreement is entered into by the City and the Association and
that the Agreement’s “intent and purpose” is “to achieve and maintain
harmonious relations between the Parties and discuss issues of mutual
concern.” The Agreement also provides a specific dispute resolution procedure
“to provide a just and equitable method for resolving disagreements between
the Parties regarding the interpretation of the provisions of this Agreement.”
Article 8 of the Agreement, which details this dispute resolution procedure,
provides that the first step of the procedure is set in motion by a police officer’s
submitting a written dispute related to the interpretation of the Agreement to
the Association. The Dispute Resolution Committee then meets to decide
8
… The Agreement specifies that “‘Party’ or ‘Parties’ means the City of
Fort Worth and the Fort Worth Police Officers’ Association.”
11
whether such a dispute actually exists; if the committee decides that the
dispute does exist, then the Association prepares a formal written grievance
and proceeds to step two of the dispute resolution procedure.9
Examining the Agreement as a whole, as we must, we hold that the
parties to the Agreement did not intend to give nonparty, individual police
officers standing to sue under the Agreement. The dispute resolution procedure
for resolving disagreements regarding the Agreement’s interpretation addresses
disagreements between the Parties—that is, the Association and the City—and
not disagreements between individual police officers and the City. The fact
that Article 19 contemplates that a police officer may fail to insist upon the
Agreement’s performance does not automatically lead to a conclusion that the
parties must have intended police officers to have standing. Rather, the
mention of “Officer” in Article 19 is merely a recognition that dispute resolution
proceedings under Article 8 can be instituted by an individual police officer’s
written dispute, but even if no written dispute is submitted by a police officer,
9
… In step two, the Association delivers its written grievance to the chief
of police; in step three, the Association delivers it to the civil service director,
who then forwards it to the city manager. If the dispute remains unresolved,
the next step is binding arbitration. See Tex. Loc. Gov’t Code Ann.
§ 143.306(b) (stating that an agreement between a public employer and an
association “may establish a procedure by which the parties agree to resolve
disputes related to a right, duty, or obligation provided by the agreement,
including binding arbitration on interpretation of the agreement”).
12
that lack of submission does not operate to waive any Party’s right to insist
upon performance. Therefore, reading Article 19 in light of the entire
agreement and not giving controlling effect to any single provision, we conclude
that the Agreement does not give standing to individual police officers. See
Seagull Energy, 207 S.W.3d at 345; see also City of Houston v. Williams, 290
S.W.3d 260, 270–71 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2009, pet. granted)
(holding that individual fire fighters did not have standing to sue for alleged
breaches of an agreement between the fire fighters’ association and the city).
3. Interpreting the Intent of the Local Government Code
Officer Davidsaver also argues that the local government code gives him
standing to sue because, regardless of the Agreement’s dispute resolution
procedures, Subchapter I vests the district court with jurisdiction over his
dispute as follows:
The district court of the judicial district in which the municipality is
located has full authority and jurisdiction on the application of
either party aggrieved by an act or omission of the other party
related to a right, duty, or obligation provided by a written
agreement . . . . The court may issue proper restraining orders,
temporary and permanent injunctions, or any other writ, order, or
process, including a contempt order, that is appropriate to enforce
the agreement.
Tex. Loc. Gov’t Code Ann. § 143.306(c). But the very next section, titled
“Agreement Supersedes Conflicting Provisions,” prioritizes the terms of a
13
written agreement between a public employer and an association over the terms
of the statute:
(a) An agreement under this subchapter supersedes a
previous statute concerning wages, salaries, rates of pay, hours of
work, or other terms and conditions of employment to the extent
of any conflict with the statute.
(b) An agreement under this subchapter preempts any
contrary statute, executive order, local ordinance, or rule adopted
by the state or a political subdivision or agent of the state,
including a personnel board, a civil service commission, or a
home-rule municipality.
(c) An agreement under this subchapter may not diminish or
qualify any right, benefit, or privilege of an employee under this
chapter or other law unless approved by a majority vote by secret
ballot of the members of the association recognized as a sole and
exclusive bargaining agent.
Id. § 143.307. Officer Davidsaver acknowledges section 143.307 but asserts
that the legislature could not have intended to construct a statute so that one
section may overrule the immediately preceding section.
In construing statutes, we ascertain and give effect to the legislature’s
intent as expressed by the statute’s language. City of Rockwall v. Hughes, 246
S.W.3d 621, 625 (Tex. 2008). When the text is clear, it is determinative of
that intent, Entergy Gulf States, Inc. v. Summers, 282 S.W.3d 433, 437 (Tex.
2009) (op. on reh’g), and we give meaning to the language consistent with
other provisions in the statute, Tex. Dep’t of Transp. v. City of Sunset Valley,
14
146 S.W.3d 637, 642 (Tex. 2004). Our practice when construing a statute is
to recognize that the words that the legislature chooses should be the surest
guide to legislative intent. Entergy, 282 S.W.3d at 437. We thus construe the
text according to its plain and common meaning unless a contrary intention is
apparent from the context or unless such a construction leads to absurd results.
Hughes, 246 S.W.3d at 625–26. We also presume that the legislature
intended a just and reasonable result by enacting the statute. Id. at 626 (citing
Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 311.021(3) (Vernon 2005)).
We disagree with Officer Davidsaver’s contention that section 143.306
authorizes suit in district court regardless of the Agreement’s terms to the
contrary. The text of section 143.307 plainly gives the City and the
Association the authority to modify statutory terms and conditions of
employment by agreement. Under this section, a validly executed agreement
supersedes any conflicting statutory provisions and preempts any contrary
statute. Further, the statute expressly states that “[a] municipality may not be
denied local control over . . . terms and conditions of employment, or other
personnel issues on which the public employer and an association that is
recognized as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent for all fire fighters or
police officers in the municipality agree.” Tex. Loc. Gov’t Code Ann.
§ 143.303(a) (emphasis added). If the City and the Association cannot agree
15
on how to modify a particular term or condition of employment, then that term
or condition remains governed by applicable statutes, local ordinances, and civil
service rules. See id.
In other words, the clear text of these two sections shows that the
legislature’s intent was to enact a statute that established default terms and
conditions of police officer employment but also granted local governments and
police officer associations the power to modify those terms by mutual
agreement. It is not an absurd result to recognize the legislature’s intent to
allow a city to exercise some local control over police officer employment and
to allow police officers, through an association serving as their sole and
exclusive bargaining agent, to have some input in the process. 10 We therefore
conclude that while section 143.306 states that the district court has “full
authority and jurisdiction” over a suit on the Agreement, it does not operate to
grant the trial court jurisdiction over Officer Davidsaver’s cause of action in this
10
… Indeed, proponents of the law pointed out that giving cities local
control through negotiated agreements “could help both city management and
city employees by establishing principles or guidelines that would not have to
be revisited annually or with changing administrations and, in doing so, could
help stabilize the budget process and other city deliberations.” House Research
Org., Bill Analysis, Tex. S.B. 863, 74th Leg., R.S. (1995). Furthermore,
“collective bargaining is a legitimate form of negotiation[,] and associations can
represent important employee and public priority viewpoints that may be
overlooked even by the most conscientious city manager.” Id.
16
case because the plain language of section 143.307 clearly allows the
Agreement’s arbitration provision to preempt the statute’s authorization of suit
in district court. See id. §§ 143.306–.307.
Similarly, we reject Officer Davidsaver’s argument that the district court
has jurisdiction in this case because the local government code does not convey
jurisdiction over his dispute to the Dispute Resolution Committee. Officer
Davidsaver is correct that the local government code does not specifically
designate the Dispute Resolution Committee as the entity with primary or
exclusive jurisdiction over his dispute; rather, it is Article 8 of the Agreement
that gives the Dispute Resolution Committee the power to evaluate a police
officer’s complaint and decide whether the Association should escalate the
dispute to the next step in the dispute resolution procedure. But the Agreement
receives its authorization to establish this dispute resolution procedure as an
alternative to lawsuits in district court from the local government code itself.
See id. Accordingly, we conclude that the local government code does not give
Officer Davidson standing to bring this dispute in district court.
D. Standing to Sue Because of the Association’s Alleged Breach of
Duty of Fair Representation
Even if Officer Davidsaver has failed to show that either the Agreement
or the local government code established his standing to sue, he may still
17
survive a plea to the jurisdiction if he prevails on his argument that the
Association, as his bargaining agent, breached its duty of fair representation in
its handling of his grievance. See McNair v. U.S. Postal Serv., 768 F.2d 730,
735 (5th Cir. 1985) (stating that if a union has breached its duty of fair
representation, an employee’s right to seek redress in court is not foreclosed
by the results of the grievance process). A union retains considerable discretion
in processing the grievances of its members, but it must represent all
employees fairly in its enforcement of a collective bargaining agreement. Landry
v. Cooper/T. Smith Stevedoring Co., 880 F.2d 846, 852 (5th Cir. 1989). A
breach of this duty of fair representation occurs only when the union’s conduct
toward an individual member “is arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad faith.” Vaca
v. Sipes, 386 U.S. 171, 190, 87 S. Ct. 903, 916 (1967). 11
11
… The parties apparently assume that federal law applies to Officer
Davidsaver’s argument. State law causes of action for violation of a collective
bargaining agreement are displaced by section 301 of the Labor Management
Relations Act of 1947. 29 U.S.C.A. § 185(a) (West 1998); Metro. Transit
Auth. v. Burks, 79 S.W.3d 254, 256–57 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.]
2002, no pet.). Further, a labor organization’s duty of fair representation is a
statutory one imposed by the National Labor Relations Act. 29 U.S.C.A.
§§ 151–69 (West 1998); Vaca, 386 U.S. at 177, 87 S. Ct. at 910. However,
the City is specifically exempted from both these acts, so it is questionable
whether this statutory duty extends to the Association. See 29 U.S.C.A.
§§ 142(3), 152(2) (both excluding “any State or political subdivision thereof”
from the statutes’ definition of “employer”), 152(5) (defining a labor
organization as one that deals with “employers”).
Regardless, we agree with the concept that a union’s duty of fair
18
Because a union has discretion in handling its individual members’
complaints, an employee has no absolute right to have his grievance taken to
arbitration or to any other level of the grievance process. Landry, 880 F.2d at
852. An employee does, however, have the right to expect that his employer
will not “arbitrarily ignore a meritorious grievance or process it in perfunctory
fashion.” Vaca, 386 U.S. at 191, 87 S. Ct. at 917. Thus, the duty of fair
representation imposes an obligation on a union to investigate a grievance in
good faith and to prosecute a grievance with reasonable diligence unless it
decides in good faith that the grievance lacks merit or for some other reason
should not be pursued. Landry, 880 F.2d at 852. The critical question in
determining whether a union has breached its duty of fair representation is
whether its conduct was arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad faith, so that it
representation “arises by implication as a necessary corollary to the right of
exclusive representation.” Bowman v. Tenn. Valley Auth., 744 F.2d 1207,
1212 (6th Cir. 1984) (holding that a federal corporation employees’ union has
a federal common law duty of fair representation identical to that of a union
whose members all work for a private employer), cert. denied, 470 U.S. 1084
(1985). Accordingly, we may look to the well-developed body of federal labor
law for guidance in connection with Officer Davidsaver’s allegations of breach
of the Association’s duty of fair representation. See Flores v. Metro. Transit
Auth., 964 S.W.2d 704, 707 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1998, no pet.)
(applying the federal statute of limitations to a claim against a public employer,
even though the public employer was exempt from federal labor acts, because
the claim involved interpretation of a labor agreement and strongly resembled
a federal unfair labor practices charge).
19
undermined the fairness or integrity of the grievance process. Id. (citing Hines
v. Anchor Motor Freight, Inc., 424 U.S. 554, 567, 96 S. Ct. 1048, 1058
(1976)).
Accordingly, to survive appellants’ plea to the jurisdiction, Officer
Davidsaver was required to plead facts affirmatively showing that the
Association’s handling of his grievance was arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad
faith. Officer Davidsaver does not allege that the Association or its Dispute
Resolution Committee was hostile toward him or that he was treated unfairly
during the dispute resolution proceedings. Instead, he points solely to the
Association’s refusal to file his dispute as a formal grievance as evidence
establishing a breach of its duty of fair representation, claiming that the
Association “failed to represent the interests of Davidsaver in any way” and
“refused to become involved in the grievance process” for him by declining to
escalate his complaint.
The decision whether to escalate Officer Davidsaver’s complaint,
however, was within the Association’s discretion. See Landry, 880 F.2d at
852. Furthermore, the only evidence in the record of the manner in which the
Association handled Officer Davidsaver’s complaint shows that it properly
followed the Agreement’s dispute resolution procedure. It notified Officer
Davidsaver of the date and time that the Dispute Resolution Committee would
20
meet to review his dispute; it encouraged him to appear at the meeting and
present his dispute in person to the committee; it allowed him to be represented
by his counsel at the meeting; it considered his statement as well as exhibits
presented by his counsel; it provided all committee members with copies of his
original written dispute, the exhibits, and the Agreement; and then, after
reviewing the information and deliberating, it took a vote on the issue of
whether to prepare a formal written grievance for the police chief. In light of
these undisputed facts, the Association’s decision not to file a formal written
grievance, standing alone, is insufficient to establish that its conduct was
arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad faith. Accordingly, we conclude that the
evidence fails to raise a fact question on the issue of breach of the
Association’s duty of fair representation and hold that Officer Davidsaver has
failed to establish standing under this theory as well.12 See Miranda, 133
S.W.3d at 227–28; Bland, 34 S.W.3d at 555.
12
… Appellants also assert that the trial court had no jurisdiction over
Officer Davidsaver’s claims because he had not exhausted the Agreement’s
dispute resolution process before filing suit. Because we have determined that
the trial court had no jurisdiction because Officer Davidsaver lacked standing
to sue, we need not reach this argument. See Tex. R. App. P. 47.1.
21
IV. CONCLUSION
Because the pleadings and the undisputed evidence show that Officer
Davidsaver does not have standing to sue under either the Agreement or the
applicable statutes as a matter of law, we sustain appellants’ issue and hold
that the trial court erred by denying their plea to the jurisdiction. We reverse
the trial court’s order denying appellants’ plea to the jurisdiction and dismiss
Officer Davidsaver’s claims against appellants.
BOB MCCOY
JUSTICE
PANEL: WALKER and MCCOY, JJ.; and WILLIAM BRIGHAM (Senior Justice,
Retired, Sitting by Assignment).
DELIVERED: July 29, 2010
22