# Board of Trustees, University of the District of Columbia v. Myers

> District of Columbia Court of Appeals · January 19, 1995 · 652 A.2d 642

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9697944

## Case

- **Full name:** BOARD OF TRUSTEES, UNIVERSITY OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Appellant, v. Ernest R. MYERS, Appellee
- **Court:** District of Columbia Court of Appeals
- **Decided:** January 19, 1995
- **Citations:** 652 A.2d 642; 148 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2494; 1995 D.C. App. LEXIS 7; 1995 WL 21131
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Schwelb
- **Judges:** Ferren, Schwelb, Farrell
- **Cited by:** 14 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9697944

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that breach of contract claim brought by professor against University of the District of Columbia was preempted by CMPA-sanctioned collective bargaining agreement between university and its employees

## Opinion text

SCHWELB, Associate Judge,
concurring in part and concurring in the judgment:
Time has not altered my view that District of Columbia v. Thompson, 593 A.2d 621 (D.C.), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 942 , 112 S.Ct. 380 , 116 L.Ed.2d 331 (1991) (Thompson II), was incorrectly decided. See id. at 636-40 (Schwelb, J., dissenting). Thompson II and now Wilson v. District of Columbia, 608 A.2d 161 (D.C.1992) (per curiam) being with us, however, I cannot fault my colleagues’ view that, under the Master Agreement, Professor Myers cannot simply skip Level Four. The Agreement states that the union “may” commence an arbitration proceeding, but this does not mean that it can arbitrarily refuse to represent a member with a meritorious complaint. On the contrary, in the processing of a grievance,
*649 [t]he union need not, and may not, sacrifice the rights of the individual to what it deems to be in the interests of the union as a whole, as it often must do during contract negotiations.
Thomas v. United Parcel Service, Inc., 890 F.2d 909, 919 (7th Cir.1989) (emphasis added); see also Dement v. Richmond, Fredericksburg & Potomac R. Co., 845 F.2d 451, 457, 459-60 (4th Cir.1988).
An attempt by Professor Myers to compel the union to arbitrate his grievance would not necessarily have been futile. Given Thompson II and the Master Agreement, UDC had a right to expect that it could arbitrate with the union instead of litigating against Myers as an individual.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9697944. Public record. Not legal advice.