United States District Court, District of Columbia
Titus Kornegay, Goldenrod, FL, pro se.
Edward R. Noonan, Mark Andrew Johnston, William D. Ledoux, Jr., Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, LLC, Lawrence J. Sherman, Law Offices of Lawrence J. Sherman, P.C., Washington, DC, for Defendants.
GLADYS KESSLER, District Judge.
Titus Kornegay (" Plaintiff" or " Kornegay" ) brings this action against Master Security, LLC (" Master" ) for breach of a collective bargaining agreement and against United Union of Security Guards (" Union" ) for breach of its duty of fair representation (" Defendants" ), under Section 301 of the National Labor Relations Act (" NLRA" ), as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 151 et seq.
This matter is before the Court on Master and Union's Motions for Summary Judgment on the Threshold Issue of the Duty of Fair Representation [Dkt. Nos. 46 and 47]. Upon consideration of the Motions, Opposition, Replies, and the entire record herein, and for the reasons set forth below, the Motions are granted.
A. Factual Background
Master provides security services for federal government agencies, among other clients. Kornegay is a former part-time security guard who was employed by Master at the headquarters building of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (" HUD" ) in Washington, D.C. Kornegay worked for Master for over two years before Master terminated his employment on March 10, 2011.
Union is an unaffiliated labor organization that represents 1500 or more security officers in the Greater Washington, D.C.— Baltimore, Md. Metropolitan Area, among other localities. Union utilizes work-site stewards to assist security officers with
grievances as well as to monitor employer adherence to the terms of the applicable collective bargaining agreement (" CBA" ).
Master and Union are parties to a CBA effective as of September 28, 2010. Master Ex. 4. The CBA contains numerous provisions that govern pay, working hours and conditions of work, the imposition of disciplinary action by the employer, and the resolution of workplace disputes through a three step grievance process. Id.
In May 2010, Kornegay failed a drug test conducted by an independent laboratory retained by Master. Master and Union claim that Kornegay subsequently was fired, and that he was only reinstated after Union's intervention on his behalf. Master and Union further claim that Master agreed to reinstate Kornegay with the understanding that he would be subjected to unannounced and unlimited random drug testing at the discretion of his supervisors and managers at the HUD worksite.
On or about February 24, 2011, Kornegay filed a grievance claiming that he was entitled to a paid 1/2 hour lunch period, which was duty-free and incorporated into his 61/2 hour workshift. Master denied the grievance and explained that, under the CBA, Kornegay was not entitled to be compensated by Master for the 1/2 hour lunch period.
On March 10, 2011, Master asked Kornegay and several other security officers to submit to a worksite drug test. The drug test was to be conducted by the independent laboratory used by Master. Kornegay refused to provide a sample for the drug test and was terminated on that same day. All of the other security officers complied with Master's directive. Several of those other security officers were terminated at the same time because of positive drug tests. Kornegay claims that he was targeted for the drug test in retaliation for filing the unpaid lunch break grievance.
On March 22, 2011, nearly two weeks after his termination, Kornegay met with Union's then-president, Ruthie Rouse (" Rouse" ), at the Union office to discuss his termination. Rouse explained to Kornegay that his refusal to take the drug test at the worksite ...