## Facts

- Anchor Motor Freight discharged Charles A. Hines and other truck drivers in June 1967 for alleged dishonesty in motel expense reimbursements.
- The drivers’ union challenged the discharges under a collective-bargaining agreement requiring grievance arbitration before a joint committee whose decision was “final and binding.”
- At arbitration, the employer presented motel receipts and sworn statements supporting the dishonesty charge; the union and employees presented no contrary evidence.
- The committee upheld the discharges.
- Later investigation suggested the employer’s evidence was false because a motel clerk allegedly falsified receipts and stole money paid by the drivers.
- The drivers sued the employer and the union under LMRA § 301, alleging discharge without just cause and a union breach of the duty of fair representation for failing to conduct a minimal investigation that would have uncovered exculpatory facts.

## Issues

1. Whether employees may maintain a § 301 wrongful-discharge action against an employer despite a contractual “final and binding” arbitration award when they also allege the union breached its duty of fair representation in processing the grievance.
2. Whether employer liability in such a § 301 action depends on proof of employer misconduct or conspiracy with the union, as opposed to a union breach that tainted the arbitration.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed the judgment insofar as it affirmed dismissal of the employees’ action against the employer and remanded.
- The Court held that dismissal was improper where employees alleged both an erroneous discharge and a union breach of the duty of fair representation that tainted the arbitral decision.
- The Court rejected limiting relief against the employer to cases showing employer misconduct or conspiracy with the union.
- The employees were entitled to attempt to prove both the contract breach by the employer and the fair-representation breach by the union and, if successful, to obtain an appropriate remedy against both.

## Legal Principles

- A union’s breach of the duty of fair representation can excuse an employee from contractual grievance-arbitration exclusivity requirements.
- If the union’s breach seriously undermines the integrity of the arbitral process, it can remove the bar of a contractual “final and binding” arbitration clause in a subsequent § 301 action.
- In a hybrid § 301/duty-of-fair-representation case, the employee must prove (1) the employer breached the collective-bargaining agreement and (2) the union breached its duty of fair representation; proof of employer bad faith or collusion is not required to proceed.
- When both elements are shown, courts may award remedies against the employer and the union notwithstanding the arbitral outcome.

## Conclusion

The Court held that a “final and binding” grievance-arbitration award does not foreclose a § 301 wrongful-discharge claim against the employer when the union’s breach of its duty of fair representation tainted the arbitration; employees may pursue relief against both employer and union upon proving both breaches.


Hines v. Anchor Motor Freight, Inc., 424 U.S. 554 (1976)