Cruise Ship Law: In a seaman's suit against a union for failing to fairly represent him after he was discharged for health reasons from working on a vessel, the union did not breach its duty of fair representation because it was not required to file a brief in support of

DON HAMRICK, Plaintiff, v. DR. RICHARD S. HOFFMAN, et al., Defendants.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 36283
May 6, 2008, Decided

PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Defendants, a shipping company that operated a seafaring vessel, a physician, and a seafarers' union, moved to dismiss a suit filed by plaintiff, a pro se seaman. The seaman alleged that the company wrongfully discharged him as unfit for duty after waiving a preemployment exam by the physician and that the union failed to fairly represent him. The seaman did not sue the holding company that owned the vessel. The seaman moved to recuse the judge.  

OVERVIEW: After the union's hiring hall referred the seaman for duty on a vessel operated by the shipping company, the seaman reported for a preemployment exam, as required by his collective bargaining agreement (CBA). After his blood pressure was taken but before the exam began, a union representative ordered the seaman to report for duty immediately. The physician reported that his blood pressure was high, causing the seaman to be sent home after arriving in a foreign port. The seaman argued that, by interrupting the exam, the company had waived the CBA's exam requirement. The court refused to recuse itself based on its rulings in the seaman's separately pending case because they did not demonstrate lack of impartiality in the instant case. The court held that the seaman failed to prove personal jurisdiction over the physician and that the shipping company could not have breached the CBA because it was not a signatory. The union did not breach its duty of fair representation because it was pursuing a grievance the seaman had filed and was not required to file a brief in support of the seaman's argument that he should be exempt from court filing fees under 28 U.S.C.S. § 1916.  

OUTCOME: The court granted the company's, the physician's, and the union's motions to dismiss the complaint. The court denied the seaman's motion for recusal. The court dismissed the case.