NLRB v. Foust

Supreme Court of the United States · 1979 · Labor Law

Labor LawRailway Labor ActDuty of Fair RepresentationPunitive DamagesRailway Labor Actduty of fair representationpunitive damagesunion liability

Facts

Respondent was discharged by Union Pacific after a dispute over whether he had properly extended his medical leave. Fifty-two days after the discharge, respondent's attorney asked the union to initiate grievance proceedings under a collective-bargaining agreement that required grievances to be filed within 60 days. Although union officials knew the deadline was imminent, they delayed processing and filed the grievance two days late. The railroad and the National Railroad Adjustment Board rejected the grievance as untimely, and respondent sued the union for breach of its duty of fair representation.

Issue

Whether the Railway Labor Act permits an employee to recover punitive damages from a union that breaches its duty of fair representation by failing properly to process a grievance. More specifically, the Court considered whether punitive damages are compatible with the remedial scheme and labor-policy objectives underlying the Act.

Rule

The Railway Labor Act does not permit punitive damages against a union for breach of its duty of fair representation in failing properly to pursue a grievance. Relief in unfair representation suits is fundamentally compensatory and should be fashioned to make the injured employee whole without imposing unpredictable punitive sanctions that threaten union finances and distort grievance-handling discretion.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Kansas City, a rail conductor asks Local 88 to file a contractual grievance after a suspension. Union officers intentionally shelve the paperwork until the filing deadline passes, and the worker proves lost wages directly caused by the union's failure to pursue the grievance.

In the worker's duty-of-fair-representation suit against the union under the Railway Labor Act, which damages are available against the union?

Explanation. The majority held that under the Railway Labor Act, punitive damages may not be assessed against a union for breaching its duty of fair representation by failing properly to pursue a grievance. Relief is fundamentally compensatory and should be fashioned to make the employee whole. Even intentional or reprehensible mishandling does not open the door to punitive damages against the union in this setting.