Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, LABOR—UNIONS, UNION MEMBERS—6th Cir.: Employee failed to show union breached duty of fair representation by refusing to grieve termination, (Oct 8, 2025)

By Ronald Miller, J.D.

A union is not obligated to file or prosecute grievances that it deems meritless.

A union was correctly granted summary judgment against an employee’s claim that it breached its duty of fair representation by refusing to grieve a second termination, ruled the Sixth Circuit in an unpublished decision. Here, the employee asserted that the union acted arbitrarily and in bad faith when it failed to grieve his second termination. However, the appeals court affirmed the district court, finding that it did not err in determining that the union’s actions were not arbitrary or in bad faith in view of concerns regarding the employee’s threatening behavior towards coworkers. Thus, the employee failed to adduce evidence that the union breached its duty of fair representation (Schramm v. Neenah Paper Michigan, Inc., No. 24-1882 (6th Cir. Oct. 6, 2025, unpublished)).

The employer, Neenah Paper, is a producer of paper-based consumer products. The employee had worked for the employer since 1986. As of 2021, the employee was the plant’s fire chief and a member of a union representing the plant’s maintenance workers. The union negotiated a collective bargaining agreement on behalf of its members.

First termination. This case involves two claims of unjust termination, separated by time, which the employee sought to grieve. The employer first terminated the employee on March 1, 2021, for reporting a chemical spill to the Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy, purportedly in violation of the employer’s confidentiality policies. He contested the termination, thereby triggering the CBA’s grievance process.

The union filed a grievance on the employee’s behalf and represented him through the first two stages of the grievance procedure. The union’s staff representative in charge of overseeing and prosecuting member grievances took over the grievance procedure at the third stage. During the third stage, the employee filed suit in federal court, alleging violation of the Whistleblower Protection Act, and the parties agreed to stay the litigation pending arbitration. On October 6, 2021, before arbitration occurred, the employer agreed to reinstate the employee with backpay.

Thereafter, the employer continued to negotiate with the union on the amount of backpay and additional rules regarding the employee’s return to work. In December 2021, the employer entered into a settlement agreement that set the employee’s return-to-work date as January 3, 2022, and the employee dismissed his lawsuit.

Animus towards coworkers. The employee had a contentious relationship with a number of employees at the plant. In May 2021, shortly after his first termination, the employee told the union president that he wanted to see five employees fired, including the plant’s human resources director and the plant manager.

The employee’s apparent animus toward his coworkers became an issue of concern among officials at the plant, as well as the union. During negotiations, union officials voiced their concerns about the employee’s prospective return to work because he was potentially “violent,” and had a “hit list” of employees he wanted to see fired. During this period, certain employees expressed concern for their personal safety.

Second termination. On December 21, 2021, the employer decided to terminate the employee’s employment because of “comments and behaviors” that “violated” the employer “workplace harassment and appropriate behavior policy.” On December 28, the corporate human resources director held a conference call with the employee and union representative, in which the employee was informed that he was being terminated due to his inappropriate behavior.

During the call, the employee confirmed that he had been angry with the local HR director and four other employees, though he denied that he had a “hit list.” Nevertheless, he continued to criticize these individuals on the call, accusing them of fostering a hostile work environment and falsifying information relating to the first termination.

Union refusal to grieve second termination. On December 31, the employee received his termination letter. Thereafter, the employee was informed that the union would not pursue a grievance in response to the second termination. The union representative testified that his decision not to file a grievance on the employee’s behalf was based on three factors: (1) he found assertions that the employee had engaged in threatening behavior credible; (2) the employee admitted that he had a list of five employees “who were the objects of his anger”; and (3) he believed the employee made a veiled threat against the local HR director.

Lawsuit. On March 2, 2022, the employee filed suit against the employer. The union was added as a party to the action on June 28. The employee asserted claims against the employer under § 301 of the LMRA and one count of breach of the duty of fair representation (DFR) against the union. Thereafter, he reached a settlement agreement with the employer, leaving the union as the sole remaining defendant.

On March 29, 2024, the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. The district court granted the union’s motion for summary judgment. The employee timely appealed.

Duty of fair representation. To demonstrate a violation of the DFR, a plaintiff must show (1) that the duty applies, (2) that the union breached the duty, and (3) that the breach caused the plaintiff’s injury. The parties agreed that the duty applies, and did not contest the issue of causation. Accordingly, the appeals court focused exclusively on breach.

A union is not obligated to file or prosecute grievances that it deems meritless. A “breach of the duty of fair representation occurs” when “a union’s conduct toward a member of the collective bargaining unit is arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad faith.” To prove a breach of the DFR, a plaintiff must show arbitrariness, discrimination, or bad faith—he need not demonstrate all three. Here, the employee asserted that the union acted arbitrarily and in bad faith when it failed to grieve his second termination.

Arbitrariness. A union “breach[es] the duty of fair representation under the ‘arbitrary prong’” only “if the union’s conduct can fairly be characterized as ‘so far outside a wide range of reasonableness’ that it is ‘wholly irrational.’”

The employee argued that the union acted arbitrarily because it failed to conduct an adequate investigation into the allegations against him and, as a result, made an ill-informed and unreasonable decision. The extent to which a union must investigate a particular complaint or issue depends on the surrounding circumstances, and the union’s investigatory decisions are entitled to judicial deference. The key question is whether the union acted “with sufficient information” and made a rational decision based on that information.

The district court concluded that the union did not act arbitrarily, pointing to (1) evidence that officials of both the employer and the union raised concerns regarding the employee behaving in a threatening manner and causing his coworkers to fear for their safety, and (2) statements made by the employee during the December 28 termination call.

The appeals court noted that at the time of the December 28 termination call, the union representative had already spoken not only with multiple company officials, but also with members and officials of the union. All these individuals reported that the employee was angry with several of his coworkers, and that employees at the plant were afraid of him and anxious about his return to work. They also complained of excessive calls and messages from the employee regarding the location of the local HR director. Critically, the employee validated these concerns during his termination call.

Based on the employee’s statements during the termination call, as well as information from company and union officials, it was not “wholly irrational” for the union to conclude that the employee would not prevail in his grievance. Because the union’s decision was adequately informed and rational, it was entitled to judicial deference.

Bad faith. The employee also asserted that the union breached the DFR because it acted in bad faith by failing to grieve his second termination. As evidence of the union’s bad faith, the employee pointed to the union representative’s “inaction” in representing him, as well as purported evidence of dishonest or deceptive conduct.

“A union acts in bad faith when it acts with an improper intent, purpose, or motive... encompassing fraud, dishonesty, and other intentionally misleading conduct.” To show bad faith, a plaintiff must adduce “substantial evidence of fraud, deceitful action or dishonest conduct.”

Here, the employee failed to provide sufficient evidence that the union representative’s decision not to proceed further with a grievance was unreasonable or improper under the circumstances of this case. Before the second termination, the representative spoke with multiple union and company officials who reported that they were afraid of the employee because of his threatening behavior. Moreover, the employee confirmed his animus toward a group of employees on the termination call and made what can reasonably be interpreted as a threat against the local HR director, observed the appeals court. Thus, the representative obtained sufficient information to deem the employee’s grievance not meritorious, and his decision not to file a grievance did not suffice to raise an inference of bad faith.

Accordingly, the appeals court affirmed the judgment of the district court.

The case is No. 24-1882.

Judge: Stranch, J.

Attorneys: Attorneys: Nicholas B. Roumel (Roumel Law) for Thomas Schramm. Matthew Lutwen, United Steelworkers of America, for United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union, AFL-CIO-CLC aka United Steel Workers aka USW.

Companies: Neenah Paper Michigan, Inc.; United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union, AFL-CIO

Cases: Labor UnionsMembers Arbitration KentuckyNews MichiganNews OhioNews TennesseeNews