Bowen v. United States Postal Service

1983-01-11

Headline: Ruling lets wrongfully dismissed workers recover damages split between employer and union, and allows unions to be held primarily liable for the portion caused by the union’s failure to pursue grievances.

Holding: The Court held that a union may be held primarily liable for the portion of a wrongfully discharged employee’s damages caused by the union’s breach, and courts must apportion damages between employer and union according to fault.

Real World Impact:

Allows unions to be held financially responsible for delays in processing grievances.
Requires courts to split backpay between employers and unions based on fault.
Pushes unions to pursue meritorious grievances to avoid liability.

Topics: union responsibility, wrongful discharge, back pay and damages, grievance arbitration

Summary

Background

Charles Bowen, a postal worker, was fired by the United States Postal Service after a workplace altercation. He is a member of the American Postal Workers Union, which refused to take his grievance to arbitration. Bowen sued both the Postal Service for wrongful discharge and the Union for breaching its duty of fair representation (the union’s obligation to represent members fairly).

Reasoning

The Court asked whether a union can be held primarily responsible for the part of an employee’s loss that the union’s bad conduct caused. Applying the Court’s earlier rule in Vaca v. Sipes, the majority held that damages should be split between employer and union based on fault: the employer remains liable for losses directly from its wrongful discharge, while the union must bear increases in those losses caused by its refusal to pursue the grievance. The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and sent the case back to enter judgment allocating damages to both defendants consistent with this approach.

Real world impact

This decision means employees, unions, and employers may see backpay awards divided according to who caused what part of the loss. Unions face a concrete risk of paying some backpay or other damages when their failure to act increases an employee’s losses. The case is sent back for the district court to apply this allocation, so the exact payment outcome can still change.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice White (joined in part by others) dissented on allocation, arguing the employer should be primarily liable for all backpay and warning the majority’s rule shifts large financial burdens onto unions and departs from earlier cases.