Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-arwd-6_06-cv-06021/USCOURTS-arwd-6_06-cv-06021-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Bill Anthony Ollison
Plaintiff
Pactiv Corporation
Defendant

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

HOT SPRINGS DIVISION

BILL ANTHONY OLLISON PLAINTIFF

v. Civil No. 06-6021

PACTIV CORPORATION DEFENDANT

O R D E R

Now on this 17th day of November, 2006, comes on for consideration

defendant’s Motion To Dismiss Count I (document #10), and from said motion,

and the response thereto, the Court finds and orders as follows:

1. Plaintiff alleges that he was terminated from his job by

defendant for retaliatory and discriminatory reasons. The retaliation claim

relates to plaintiff’s former union membership. Defendant moves to dismiss

this claim, contending that it is preempted by the National Labor Relations

Act.

2. The specifics of plaintiff’s Complaint, as it relates to his

retaliation claim, are as follows:

31. For approximately five years of his employment,

hourly and wage workers in the Defendant’s place of business

were represented by a labor union; what was subsequently

disbanded in or about 2004.

32. Plaintiff also states that he was the Southwest

Regional District Representative with the union; and management

had a practice of harassing and intimidating former union

members.

33. Plaintiff believes that his termination was also

based in part upon his prior association with the union.

* * *

36. The Defendants deliberately set a course of

retaliation against the Plaintiff, due in full measure to the

Plaintiff’s prior involvement in the labor union where he was

the Southwest Regional District Representative; a direct and

unlawful violation of rights protected by the Constitution of

Arkansas.

37. Defendants discriminated against the Plaintiff and

violated Plaintiff’s constitutionally protected rights, when

they terminated his employment; a direct violation of the

Case 6:06-cv-06021-JLH Document 19 Filed 11/17/06 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: <pageID>
-2-

constitutional provision which states; “[n]o person shall be

denied employment because of membership in or affiliation with

or resignation from a labor union....”

38. Defendants entered into an unwritten contract or

agreement among themselves to exclude the Plaintiff from their

employ, a prohibition of applicable Arkansas law, which provides

that no firm shall contract to exclude from employment

“[p]ersons who, having joined a labor union, have resigned their

membership or have been discharged, expelled or excluded.”

39. Plaintiff has a right and expectation to be free from

retaliation for participation in a lawfully sanctioned activity;

however, Defendants purposely and intentionally acted to deprive

the Plaintiff of his constitutionally protected right to have

associated with a labor union.

3. It can be seen from the pleading that what plaintiff complains

of is that he was discharged for engaging in union activities. Discharging

an employee for engaging in union activities is protected by §8 of the

National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”). Platt v. Jack Cooper Transport Co.,

Inc., 959 F.2d 91, 94 (8th Cir. 1992). This Court does not have

jurisdiction over a suit directly involving activity which is even arguably

subject to §8 of the NLRA. San Diego Building Trades Council, Millmen’s

Union, Local 2020 v. Garmon, 359 U.S. 236 (1959). While there are

exceptions to such preemption, Vaca v. Sipes, 386 U.S. 171 (1967), the Court

does not find any of those exceptions applicable to plaintiff’s situation.

Thus, it concludes defendant’s motion should be granted, and that

plaintiff’s retaliation should be dismissed.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that defendant’s Motion To Dismiss Count I

(document #10) is granted.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 /s/ Jimm Larry Hendren 

JIMM LARRY HENDREN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case 6:06-cv-06021-JLH Document 19 Filed 11/17/06 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: <pageID>