Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-03603/USCOURTS-ca8-04-03603-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 720
Nature of Suit: Labor Management Relations Act
Cause of Action: 

---

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-3603

___________

Larry A. Finney, *

*

Plaintiff - Appellant, *

*

v. *

*

GDX Automotive, a fictitious name * Appeal from the United States

for GenCorp Inc.; International * District Court for the

Association of Machinists and * Eastern District of Arkansas.

Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO, also *

known as or referred to as the Grand * [UNPUBLISHED]

Lodge of the International Association *

of Machinists and Aerospace Workers *

AFL-CIO, acting on behalf of District *

Lodge No. 156 and Local Lodge *

No. 2248 of the International *

Association of Machinists and *

Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO, *

*

Defendants - Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: March 14, 2005

Filed: March 24, 2005

___________

Before MURPHY, BYE, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Appellate Case: 04-3603 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/24/2005 Entry ID: 1883041 
1

The Honorable James M. Moody, United States District Judge for the Eastern

District of Arkansas.

-2-

Larry A. Finney filed suit in state court against GenCorp, Inc. (GenCorp) and

the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO (the

Union), alleging breach of employment law, the tort of civil fraud, wrongful

discharge, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, a violation of public

policy, and promissory estoppel. The case was removed to federal court based on

diversity of citizenship, and GenCorp and the Union moved for judgment on the

pleadings. The district court1

 granted the motion and dismissed the complaint under

Federal Rule of Procedure 12(b)(6), holding that Finney's state law claims were

preempted by § 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947 (LMRA), 29

U.S.C. § 185. Finney appeals.

Finney argues that his employment was not governed by the collective

bargaining agreement negotiated by the Union with GenCorp but by a separate

agreement. He contends that his claims are not preempted by § 301 because his state

law claims originate solely under Arkansas common and statutory law and are

substantially independent from any right derived from the collective bargaining

agreement. GenCorp and the Union argue that Finney's claims are preempted by

§ 301 because they require analysis of the terms of the collective bargaining

agreement. They also contend that Finney failed to state a claim upon which relief

could be granted under Arkansas law.

Finney's employment was governed by the collective bargaining agreement at

the time of his discharge, and any question regarding whether he had entered into a

separate agreement with GenCorp could not be decided without interpreting the

collective bargaining agreement. Since his state law claims substantially depend

upon interpreting the terms of that agreement, they are preempted by § 301 of the

LMRA. Allis-Chalmers Corp. v. Lueck, 471 U.S. 202, 220 (1985).

Appellate Case: 04-3603 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/24/2005 Entry ID: 1883041 
-3-

We accordingly affirm the judgment of the district court.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 04-3603 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/24/2005 Entry ID: 1883041