CA1: directed verdict against one labor defendant can be resolved on harmless error grounds

Goulet v. New Penn Motor Exp., No. 06-2487.  This is a pretty complex labor law case, in which it is alleged that the union dropped the ball in representing an employee.  There was a directed verdict against the employer.  The First results this question by saying that based on the evidence introduced against the union and found by the jury the employer-defendant would have won, and therefore any error is harmless.  The judge told the jury that the fact that the employer was no longer there wasn’t evidence of anything, and since the First says that is a good enough instruction, then the First is confident that there was no prejudice.  Regarding the jury instructions vis-a-vis the union, the First says that the objections were not only waived – but affirmatively waived.  Finally, regarding a challenge to the jury verdict for the union (and its duty to represent the plaintiff) the First says that it, indeed, was good enough.