## Facts

- Eric “Frank” Feichtinger, an Anchorage police officer and union member, was arrested in 1988, criminally charged by the State, and terminated by the Anchorage Police Department after an internal investigation.
- The collective bargaining agreement required “just cause” for discharge and allowed an employee to arbitrate without union representation if the union declined to take the grievance.
- Feichtinger timely grieved his termination seeking reinstatement and back pay; after deliberation, the union declined to take the grievance to arbitration and later declined to reconsider.
- Feichtinger pursued arbitration on his own; the arbitration was postponed pending resolution of the criminal case, and he was acquitted in 1990.
- After the acquittal, the union again declined to support the grievance.
- At the arbitration hearing, Feichtinger requested a continuance to pursue litigation against the union to obtain resources for counsel; the arbitrator denied the request, Feichtinger left the hearing, and the arbitration proceeded without him (though he later filed a pro se submission).
- The arbitrator upheld the discharge for just cause.
- Feichtinger filed a civil action against multiple parties; all defendants were dismissed except the union, leaving a claim for breach of the duty of fair representation.
- The union moved for summary judgment, arguing the arbitration award precluded litigation and that no breach was shown; the superior court denied the motion, and the union sought interlocutory review.

## Issues

1. Whether an arbitration award upholding discharge has claim- or issue-preclusive effect against an employee’s later duty-of-fair-representation claim when the alleged union breach may have compromised the arbitration process.
2. Whether the summary-judgment record presented genuine issues of material fact on breach of the duty of fair representation and on whether any breach seriously undermined the integrity of the arbitral process.

## Decision

- The Alaska Supreme Court affirmed the superior court’s denial of the union’s motion for summary judgment.
- The court held that an arbitration decision may lose preclusive effect if a union’s breach of the duty of fair representation seriously undermines the integrity of the arbitral process.
- The court concluded the record permitted competing factual inferences on both breach and its effect on arbitral integrity, making summary judgment inappropriate.

## Legal Principles

- Arbitration awards under a collective bargaining agreement generally may have preclusive effect, but that effect depends on a fair and adequate arbitral process.
- A union owes a duty of fair representation to bargaining-unit members, requiring non-discriminatory, good-faith, and honest exercise of representational discretion.
- If a union’s breach of the duty of fair representation seriously undermines the integrity of the arbitral process, the resulting arbitration decision may not bar subsequent litigation through claim or issue preclusion.
- Whether a breach occurred and whether it sufficiently tainted the arbitration are commonly fact-intensive questions not suited to resolution as a matter of law on an undeveloped or disputed record.

## Conclusion

The court allowed Feichtinger’s duty-of-fair-representation claim to proceed, holding that an arbitration award is not necessarily preclusive when there is a triable dispute that the union’s misconduct seriously compromised the fairness of the arbitral process.


Anchorage Police Dep’t Emps. Ass’n v. Feichtinger, 994 P.2d 376 (Alaska 1999)