Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, LABOR—UNIONS, UNION MEMBERS—E.D.N.Y.: Employees failed to show union received funds from employer in strike settlement, (Aug 21, 2025)

By Ronald Miller, J.D.

The employees submitted no evidence from which a rational trier of fact could find that the union obtained any funds from Charter that it then directed to non-Charter retirees.

Three union members failed to show that a union breached its duty of fair representation by distributing money it received from an employer as part of strike settlement to retirees, most of whom had never worked for the employer, ruled a federal district court in New York. The undisputed evidence in the record showed that the employer never made a payment to the union related to a settlement agreement ending the strike and that the employer’s payments to a pension plan were in settlement of the company’s withdrawal liability to the plan. Because the employees failed to show the union ever received money as part of the strike settlement, the union was granted its motion for summary judgment (Harris v. Local 3, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, No. 22-CV-6612 (RPK) (JRC) (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 14, 2025)).

The plaintiffs in this action are former employees of Charter Communications, and were also members of the union, IBEW Local 3. In 2017, the union called a strike against Charter. After the strike began, Charter continued to operate with replacement employees, supervisors, and workers who crossed the picket line. The employer also unilaterally removed union members of the bargaining unit from a pension plan to which Charter had long contributed.

More than five years. The strike against Charter lasted for more than five years. By 2022, few employees remained on the picket line; many had taken other jobs, retired, or crossed the picket line to work for Charter under terms the employer had unilaterally set.

Strike settlement. In 2022, the union entered into an agreement through which it disclaimed interest in continuing to represent Charter employees. The agreement settled all pending litigation, NLRB charges, and disputes between the parties. As part of the settlement, Charter agreed to pay backpay to several specific, named employees or former employees whom Charter had allegedly subjected to unfair labor practices or discrimination. However, the settlement agreement did not provide for any payments to be made to the union.

Withdrawal liability. That same year, Charter entered an agreement to pay withdrawal liability to the pension plan. But the employer and the plan differed as to the amount of Charter’s withdrawal liability. Ultimately, Charter and the pension plan negotiated an estimated $80 million settlement of withdrawal liability.

Three union members filed this lawsuit alleging that the union violated the NLRA by breaching its duty of fair representation. The employees alleged that in resolving the strike, Charter had made a payment to the union that was intended to be paid to those who had gone out on strike. Instead, the employees claimed that the union paid this money to all retirees of the union in the form of a $1500 pension bonus, “whether or not they were former Charter employees.”

Breach of duty of fair representation. A claim for breach of the duty of fair representation has two elements: (i) the union’s conduct must be “arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad faith,” and (ii) there must be “a causal connection between the union’s wrongful conduct and [the plaintiffs’] injuries.” The court noted that while a union’s actions would qualify as arbitrary only if “the union’s behavior is so far outside a ‘wide range of reasonableness,’ as to be irrational,” the employees’ allegations regarding distribution of settlement payments adequately pleaded such conduct.

The union moved for summary judgment arguing that the employees had failed to adduce any evidence that it had engaged in an arbitrary distribution of any settlement proceeds.

Arbitrary distributions. Here, the court concluded that the union was entitled to summary judgment because the employees had not adduced evidence to support their theory of arbitrary distributions. The undisputed evidence in the record showed that Charter never made a payment to the union related to the settlement agreement ending the strike and that Charter’s payments to the separate pension plan were a settlement of the company’s withdrawal liability to the plan.

The employees submitted no evidence from which a rational trier of fact could find that the union obtained any funds from Charter that it then directed to non-Charter retirees. Because the union successfully demonstrated the absence of a genuine dispute of material fact, it was entitled to summary judgment on employees’ claim.

The case is No. 22-CV-6612 (RPK) (JRC).

Judge: Kovner, R.

Attorneys: Arthur Z. Schwartz (Advocates for Justice) for Tracey Harris, Lawrence O’Rourke, and Anthony Gagliano. Marty Gerard Glennon (Archer, Byington, Glennon & Levine) for Local 3, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers.

Companies: Local 3, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers

Cases: Labor UnionsMembers PensionBenefitPlans UnfairLaborPractices NewYorkNews