DocketNumber: No. CV-98-0581494-S
Citation Numbers: 1999 Conn. Super. Ct. 2565, 24 Conn. L. Rptr. 226
Judges: WAGNER, JUDGE TRIAL REFEREE.
Filed Date: 2/17/1999
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/17/2021
Article 6 of the collective bargaining agreement sets out a CT Page 2566 grievance procedure to deal with claims that arise out of the employer-employee relationship. The first step of the grievance procedure is for an "aggrieved employee and/or the union on behalf of any aggrieved employee" to present the facts of the grievance to the immediate supervisor within ten days. The plaintiff claims that he relied on the union to file a grievance on his behalf, but he did not initiate the grievance procedure on his own as permitted by the collective bargaining agreement.
Exhaustion is not required, however, when the remedy would be demonstrably futile or inadequate, that is where the grievance procedure could not come to a favorable result. Hunt v. Prior,
supra,
The United States Supreme Court has held that an employee may seek judicial enforcement of his contractual rights if, the union has the sole power under the contract to invoke the higher stages of the grievance procedure, and if the employee has been prevented from exhausting his contractual remedies by the union's wrongful refusal to process the grievance. Vaca v. Sipes, supra,
These cases differ factually from the present case in which the plaintiff could have filed the initial grievance himself. In the cases that allowed the plaintiff to proceed with a claim of bad faith against the union despite the plaintiff's failure to exhaust the grievance procedure, it was the union alone that could have taken the grievance to the next stage. See Bowen v.United States Postal Service, supra,
Several Superior Court cases have found a lack of subject matter jurisdiction over a claim for breach of the duty of fair representation based on a claim that the union president failed to file a grievance on behalf of a plaintiff, where the plaintiff could have filed a grievance himself. See Greene v. New LondonEducation Assn., Superior Court, judicial district of New London at New London, Docket No. 514692 (October 30, 1992, Leuba, J.); see also Cross v. Nearine, Superior Court, judicial district of Hartford/New Britain at Hartford, Docket No. 538675 (February 17, 1995, Wagner, J.). But cf. Wierzbinski v. Groton Board ofEducation, supra, Superior Court, Docket No. 515676 (denying motion to dismiss by employer for failure to exhaust when plaintiff joined union as defendant and alleged breach of duty of fair representation by union by refusing to bring grievance). The weight of authority is to the effect that this court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the plaintiff's claims for damages against the union and Enfield due to his failure to commence and exhaust the grievance procedure of the collective CT Page 2568 bargaining agreement.
Motions to dismiss granted.
Wagner, J. Judge Trial Referee