Task: Text Completion
Input (English): Re- ’ ” Kaiser Steel Corp. v. Mullins, 455 U.S. 72, 83, 102 S.Ct. 851, 859, 70 L.Ed.2d 833 (1982) (quoting San Diego Bldg. Trades Council v. Garmon, 359 U.S. 236, 79 S.Ct. 773, 3 L.Ed.2d 775 (1959)); Laborers Health & Welfare Trust Fund v. Advanced Lightweight Concrete Co., Inc., 484 U.S. 539, 108 S.Ct. 830, 832 n. 4, 98 L.Ed.2d 936 (1988). Yet, when there is an independent federal remedy that is consistent with the NLRA, then a plaintiff may have a choice of federal remedies, Connell Constr. Co., Inc. v. Plumbers & Steamfitters Local Union No. 100, 421 U.S. 616, 636 n. 17, 95 S.Ct. 1830, 1841 n. 17, 44 L.Ed.2d 418 (1975), and may be able to proceed in federal court. See, e.g., Hospital Employees’ Div. of Local 79 v. Mercy-Memorial Hospital, Corp., 862 F.2d 606, 608 (6th Cir.1988) (<HOLDING>). Plaintiffs claim that in this case they are 
 Holding statements: (A) holding employees negligence claim against his employer was preempted by the lmra (B) holding that the age discrimination in employment act was not preempted by the nlra (C) holding employees negligence claim not preempted by lmra (D) holding that  302 of the lmra is not preempted by nlrbs exclusive jurisdiction to hear  7 or  8 nlra cases (E) holding plaintiffs state law claims of inter alia tortious interference with contract are preempted by section 301 of lmra
Output (English): (D)