Nagel v. United Food and Commercial Workers Union, Local 653

Background

The dispute arose from 2018 collective bargaining agreements between United Food and Commercial Workers Union, Local 653, and SuperValu Cub Foods and other independent grocers in the Minneapolis metropolitan area. Matthew Nagel worked for SuperValu Cub Foods and belonged to Local 653, which was the exclusive bargaining representative for the grocers’ meat and food market employees.

Under earlier agreements, some Local 653 members qualified for a “30-and-out” pension benefit, allowing them to receive full retirement benefits after 30 years of qualifying employment service. Nagel alleged that Local 653 unilaterally gave up that benefit and intentionally withheld important information from union members. He claimed that, if members had been adequately informed, they could have opposed the loss, rejected the proposed agreement, or sought additional compensation or other terms.

Nagel sued Local 653 individually and on behalf of similarly situated members. His remaining claim in this order was that Local 653 breached its duty to fairly represent the members through bad-faith conduct. The court had previously dismissed his Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act claim for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. This order addressed only Nagel’s motion to certify a class.

Nagel proposed a class consisting of Local 653 members covered by the March 4, 2018 collective bargaining agreements with specified grocers who, under those agreements as implemented by the pension fund, lost preexisting eligibility for 30-and-out early-retirement benefits.

Standing of the Proposed Class

Local 653 argued that the class could not be certified because some proposed members lacked standing. Constitutional standing requires an injury in fact, a connection between the injury and the defendant’s challenged conduct, and a likelihood that a favorable decision would remedy the injury.

The court rejected Local 653’s argument as framed. It concluded that the argument concerned whether some class members could ultimately prove damages, which was a merits issue rather than a standing issue. Nagel alleged that the members lost the opportunity to receive full retirement benefits after 30 years of service because of Local 653’s alleged breach. Because the proposed class was limited to members who lost preexisting eligibility for the benefit, the court concluded that the class members had a potentially redressable injury and that Nagel presented a justiciable claim.

Class Certification Under Rule 23

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 requires a proposed class to satisfy four requirements: enough members that individual lawsuits would be impractical, common legal or factual questions, claims typical of the class, and a representative who will fairly and adequately protect the class. The plaintiff also must satisfy at least one additional Rule 23(b) requirement.

The court found that the numerosity requirement was satisfied because Nagel estimated that the proposed class contained more than 1,000 members. Local 653 did not challenge that requirement.

The court also found commonality. Although the extent of the alleged injury could differ among members, they shared a common liability question: whether Local 653 breached its duty of fair representation through bad-faith conduct.

The court found that Nagel had not established typicality. Nagel was a member of the SuperValu Cub Foods bargaining unit, while the proposed class also included members of other bargaining units. The court determined that claims involving those other units would depend on separate negotiations, Local 653’s dealings with each unit, the effect of those dealings on each unit’s vote, and what each employer might have been willing to exchange for the benefit concession. As a result, Nagel’s claim was not typical of the claims of members of the other bargaining units.

The court also found that Nagel had not established adequacy of representation. Local 653 submitted declarations from five members who knew the proposed agreement would eliminate their ability to work toward the 30-and-out benefit but voted to approve it because they believed the agreement served their interests and the union members’ interests. The court concluded that these differing positions created a substantial conflict within the proposed class. The possibility that members could opt out of the class did not, by itself, resolve that conflict.

Because Nagel failed to satisfy the typicality and adequacy requirements, the court declined to redefine the proposed class and allow the action to proceed on a narrower basis.

Disposition

The court denied Plaintiff Matthew Nagel’s motion for class certification, docket number 121. The order did not certify the proposed class.