 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local Union 1547 v. Lindgren8/13/1999
[No. 5159 - August 13, 1999]
Appeal from the Superior Court of the State of Alaska, Fourth Judicial District, Fairbanks, Ralph R. Beistline, Judge.
I. INTRODUCTION
Both parties to this appeal challenge aspects of the superior court's award of damages against a union for a breach of its duty of fair representation.
II. FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS
Clay E. Lindgren and Craig F. Van Amburg were employed by the Fairbanks Municipal Utilities System (FMUS), an agency of the City of Fairbanks, in a bargaining unit represented by the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 1547 (IBEW). FMUS laid off Lindgren and Van Amburg effective January 10, 1992.
Lindgren and Van Amburg initially filed separate lawsuits against the City of Fairbanks and against certain FMUS supervisors (collectively the City) challenging their layoffs. Lindgren's complaint contained numerous legal theories, including loss of a protected merit position, loss of contractual rehire rights, violation of the Alaska Whistleblower Act, and denial of a meaningful hearing in violation of 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983. Lindgren sought compensatory and punitive damages, reinstatement, interest, and attorney's fees. Van Amburg's complaint was similar except that it contained no Whistleblower statute allegations.
Some months later, Lindgren and Van Amburg filed another lawsuit in which the City, the Deputy City Manager-Utilities, IBEW, and the union's business agent Pete Blair (collectively the IBEW) were defendants. The complaint in this action accused the defendants of conspiring to deprive the plaintiffs of their rights and alleged that IBEW had breached its duty of fair representation to the plaintiffs "by failing to protect plaintiffs' constitutionally protected property interests because of hostility or animus, and/or because of a lack of complete good faith and honesty and/or because of arbitrary conduct on the part of the defendant union."
In June 1994 Lindgren and Van Amburg settled their lawsuits against the City. Van Amburg received the principal sum of $35,000 and attorney's fees of $5,300 under Civil Rule 82. Lindgren received the principal sum of $155,000 plus Rule 82 attorney's fees of $13,800 and costs of $3,718.90. Van Amburg was reinstated, but Lindgren was not. Lindgren's settlement agreement recited that, if he returned to work at FMUS, he might "be subjected to hostility and animosity in the workplace by union members, given his pending lawsuit against the union." Finally, the City made pension contributions on behalf of each plaintiff for the period of January 13, 1992, to June 1, 1994.
But these settlements did not end the litigation, for the plaintiffs' claims against IBEW remained. Following a pretrial conference held shortly before the scheduled trial, the superior court issued an order directing the course of future proceedings. A jury trial on the question of IBEW's liability was ordered. With respect to damages, the plaintiffs' claims were limited to costs and attorney's fees incurred in privately prosecuting their claims against the City. The order noted that the attorney's fees were incurred under contingent fee agreements, and that these agreements provided "a reasonable basis upon which to determine damages in this case." The court therefore "conclude , as a matter of law, that the appropriate measure of Plaintiffs' damages for attorney fees the monies spent under the terms of their contingency fee agreement ." The court also allowed IBEW to offset that portion of each settlement which represented Civil Rule 82 attorney's fees, less the contingent fee percentage applied to the Rule 82 fees:
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Alaska Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|