Lee Rudowski was a firefighter for Superior Township, Michigan, beginning his employment in January 2019. A year later, Rudowski was arrested for operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated. Rudowski spoke with Lance Pierce, the president of his union, IAFF Local 3292, about his arrest. Pierce told Rudowski that nothing in the CBA or the Township’s employee handbook required an employee to report an off-duty arrest. Because of this conversation, he did not report his arrest to the Township.
Rudowski entered into a plea agreement which included restrictions on his license, allowing him to drive only to and from work. Rudowski would later explain that he planned to inform his employer about the plea agreement around the time of his sentencing, scheduled for March 2021. However, before that could happen, Fire Chief Victor Chevrette was informed about Rudowski’s driving restrictions by the Michigan Secretary of State’s Office. Rudowski was immediately prohibited from driving Township vehicles and was terminated shortly thereafter for failing to disclose his January 2020 arrest.
The Union’s grievance commission, which included Pierce, met to discuss the termination with labor counsel. They learned that the cost of arbitration would be roughly $8,000 or $9,000. Around the same time, the Union negotiated a settlement with the Township by which Rudowski would resign with a neutral job reference to future employers and receive over $11,000 for accumulated leave. After several meetings between Rudowski, the Union, and the Township, Rudowski declined to take the settlement, and instead chose to be discharged and grieve. The Township denied the grievance at each step. As the grievance entered the arbitration stage, Rudowski was made aware that it could only proceed with the approval of a majority of the union membership. The Union asked Rudowski to share with the membership documents and exhibits he used at a grievance meeting, but he refused. At a May 2021 Union meeting, the members were told that Rudowski refused to share documentation relevant to his case, and they voted not to pursue arbitration on his grievance.
Rudowski filed an unfair labor practice charge against the Union for violating its duty of fair representation (DFR) to him, arguing that there was a high likelihood of success on the merits of his termination grievance. He argued that he was given poor advice by Pierce not to disclose his arrest, and several other related allegations that the Union did not take the proper steps in evaluating or presenting his grievance. The ALJ ruled in favor of the Union, finding that it pursued the grievance through the contractual steps, held strategy meetings in regard to the grievance, and only did not arbitrate due to the membership vote. The ALJ found that Pierce’s statements to Rudowski about disclosing his arrest, at worst, constituted negligence not rising to the level of a DFR violation. The full labor board affirmed Rudowski’s appeal. He appealed again.
The Michigan Court of Appeals disagreed that Pierce’s statements to Rudowski regarding the lack of reporting requirement for his off-duty arrest constituted a DFR violation. The Court explained that the record revealed that Pierce never directly advised Rudowski not to disclose his arrest to his Employer and that Rudowski made the decision not to share information related to his grievance with the Union membership, which he knew would have the ultimate authority to arbitrate his grievance.
The Court noted that unions enjoy a good deal of discretion in choosing whether to move a grievance to arbitration and may rely on considerations beyond the merits of the grievance itself, such as “the good of the general membership, the amount at stake, the likelihood of success, the cost, and the desirability of winning the award against considerations that affect the membership as a whole.” Rudowski admitted at the hearing that “anybody would double think whether it was a wise choice to take his grievance to arbitration” based on the allegations set forth in his grievance denial letter. The Union held at least six internal meetings with Rudowski, Union executives, and Union members to evaluate the grievance, and was successful at negotiating a potential settlement. When Rudowski declined the settlement, the Union continued to represent him throughout the grievance process. Taken together, the Union clearly discharged its responsibilities to Rudowski regarding his grievance and the Court affirmed the decision of the labor board.
Superior Township Fire Fighters Union Local 3292 International Association of Fire Fighters v. Rudowski, No. 365650 (Mich. Ct. App., 2024).