Waggeh v. Utility Workers Union of America Local 1-2 et al.

What the court wrote

Verbatim from the court's document (public domain). Ellipses mark omitted text; nothing is paraphrased.

9-10.) As set forth at the end of this Opinion and Order, in response to an Order to Show Cause from the Court, Petitioner admits that these cases were incorrectly cited do not support his argument with respect to the ALJ’s decision and has withdrawn such argument. (See Hardy 4/29/25 Decl., ECF No. 47, ¶¶ 5-8.) (CBA, ECF No. 22-1 at 60.) This clause on its face protects union members from layoffs due to technological changes. However, Petitioner was not terminated due to technological changes. Rather, he was terminated due to allegations of falsified entries into a computer template. Thus, the clause has no application here and the Union could have breached no duty by failing to raise it with the arbitrator. In sum, the Petition does not plausibly allege that the Union’s conduct in this case was arbitrary, discriminatory or in bad faith. Rather, the actions taken by the Union in the course of representing Petitioner were tactical choices that cannot support a hybrid § 301/fair representation claim.