## Facts

- Benjamin Owens, a Swift & Company employee and union member, was discharged for “poor health” after the company doctor found his blood pressure too high to return to heavy work.
- Owens filed a grievance under a collective bargaining agreement that required a multi-step grievance process ending in arbitration.
- The union pursued the grievance through step four, obtained an independent medical examination with an unfavorable result, and then decided not to take the grievance to arbitration.
- Owens sued union officials in Missouri state court, alleging wrongful discharge and that the union arbitrarily refused to arbitrate his grievance.
- A jury found for Owens, but the trial judge set aside the verdict on the ground that the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) had exclusive jurisdiction; the intermediate appellate court affirmed.
- The Missouri Supreme Court reversed, reinstated the verdict, and the union sought review in the U.S. Supreme Court.

## Issues

1. Whether a state-court suit alleging a union’s breach of the duty of fair representation is preempted by the NLRA because such conduct may also be an unfair labor practice within NLRB authority.
2. What standard governs a union’s duty of fair representation when processing and deciding whether to arbitrate grievances.
3. Whether the union’s handling of Owens’s grievance violated that duty and what remedies and liability rules apply.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed the Missouri Supreme Court.
- Federal law governs the duty of fair representation, but state and federal courts may hear such claims; NLRB jurisdiction is not exclusive.
- A union breaches the duty of fair representation only when its conduct toward a member is arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad faith.
- The union did not breach its duty by declining arbitration after investigating and reasonably concluding the grievance lacked merit.

## Legal Principles

- The duty of fair representation arises from the statutory system of exclusive representation, and federal law supplies the cause of action and governing standards.
- NLRA preemption does not bar judicial enforcement of the duty of fair representation; courts may provide remedies even if the same conduct could be characterized as an unfair labor practice.
- A union has discretion in grievance administration and may refuse to pursue arbitration after a good-faith investigation, so long as its decision is not arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad faith.
- In “hybrid” litigation involving both an employer’s alleged contract breach and a union’s alleged unfair representation, an employee generally must prove both the employer’s breach and the union’s duty breach to obtain relief.
- Where both employer and union contribute to an employee’s harm, damages should be allocated according to their respective responsibility.

## Conclusion

The Court held that employees may sue unions in court for breach of the duty of fair representation despite potential NLRB overlap, and it set the controlling standard—arbitrary, discriminatory, or bad-faith union conduct—while concluding the union’s reasoned decision not to arbitrate Owens’s grievance was not actionable.


Vaca v. Sipes, 386 U.S. 171 (1967)