### In the



# United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

____________________

No. 19

‐ 3142

D ANIEL S ARAUER

, et al.,

Plaintiffs

‐ Appellants

,

v.

I NTERNATIONAL A SSOCIATION OF M ACHINISTS

AND A EROSPACE W ORKERS

, D ISTRICT N O

. 10, et al.,

Defendants

‐ Appellees

.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Eastern District of Wisconsin.

No. 2:16

‐ cv

‐ 00361

‐ DEJ

— David E. Jones

, Magistrate Judge

.

____________________

A RGUED A PRIL 15, 2020

— D ECIDED J ULY 20, 2020

____________________

Before M ANION

, H AMILTON

, and B ARRETT

, Circuit Judges

.

H AMILTON

, Circuit Judge

. Private labor relations in this

country are governed almost exclusively by federal law. This

case is about the “almost.” Under federal law, unions and em

‐ ployers may enter into collective bargaining agreements with

“union security” clauses, which require employees either to

become union members after being hired or, if they do not

join, to pay fees to the union for representing them, as federal2 No. 19

‐ 3142

law requires of the union. Congress has allowed states to take

a di ff erent view of such clauses, however. More than half the

states today have “right to work” laws prohibiting unions and

employers from entering into union security agreements.

Wisconsin’s Act 1 enacted in 2015 is a right

‐ to

‐ work law.

Plainti ff s are ten Wisconsin employees who contend that Act

1 invalidated the union security clause in the 2015–2018 col

‐

lective bargaining agreement between their employer and

their bargaining unit’s union, both defendants here. Plainti ff s

fi led this suit in a Wisconsin state court, and defendants re

‐

moved to federal district court. The district court held that re

‐

moval was proper because the case arises under federal law,

not state law. The court then held as a ma tt er of federal law

that defendants’ collective bargaining agreement was formed

before Act 1 took e ff ect so that plainti ff s are not entitled to re

‐

lief. The court granted summary judgment for the defense. We

a ffi rm as to both jurisdiction and the merits.

I. Background

The material facts are not disputed. Defendant Maysteel

Industries is a sheet metal fabricator in Wisconsin. Maysteel

employees are represented by defendant Machinists Union.

Plainti ff s are ten employees of Maysteel who do not want to

join the union and pay dues or even make fair

‐ share pay

‐

ments. From March 2012 to March 2015, the company and the

union were parties to a collective bargaining agreement that

contained a union security clause. It required Maysteel em

‐ ployees as a condition of employment either to become union

members or to pay a “service fee for representation” to the

union. Under the agreement’s dues check

‐ o ff provision,No. 19

‐ 3142 3

Maysteel, with an employee’s authorization, deducted the un

‐

ion’s dues or fees from the employee’s paycheck and sent the

money to the union.

In January 2015, the company and the union began nego

‐ tiating a new collective bargaining agreement. Working from

the 2012–2015 agreement as a baseline, the parties kept a writ

‐

ten tally of proposed changes as they were agreed upon. By

February 27 the new agreement had been fully negotiated ex

‐

cept for the timing of breaks, a point on which the old agree

‐

ment had been silent and which the new agreement provided

would be se tt led by the parties by April without further con

‐ tracting. On February 28 the new agreement (that is, the old

agreement plus all agreed upon changes) was presented to the

union membership for rati fi cation. The membership rati fi ed

the new agreement the same day. The new agreement was to

take e ff ect on March 5, the day after the old agreement ex

‐ pired, but the parties agreed to implement it on March 2 to

line up its new wage rates with the start of a new pay period.

The new agreement was actually signed on March 18, a point

that is at the heart of plainti ff s’ claims, which depend on when

the new agreement took e ff ect.

On March 11, Wisconsin’s Act 1 took e ff ect. It applied “to

a collective bargaining agreement containing provisions in

‐

consistent with this act upon renewal, modi fi cation, or exten

‐

sion of the agreement occurring on or after” that date. 2015

Wis. Act 1 § 13. Three plainti ff s began objecting to the fee de

‐

ductions and demanded that Maysteel stop them. These

plainti ff s also demanded copies of their signed check

‐ o ff au

‐

thorizations. Neither the company nor the union was forth

‐ coming. The three plainti ff s fi led charges with the National

Labor Relations Board complaining of unfair labor practices.4 No. 19

‐ 3142

The Board negotiated a se tt lement of the charges that did not

require reimbursement of the deductions or invalidation of

the union security clause.

In 2016, plainti ff s then fi led this lawsuit in a Wisconsin

state court. The complaint alleged two claims for unfair labor

practices under state law as amended by Act 1. It alleged that

plainti ff s had been unlawfully required to pay union fair

‐

share fees as a condition of employment in violation of Wis.

Stat. § 111.04(3)(a). The complaint added a third claim for vi

‐

olation of the state wage payment statute, alleging on behalf

of those plainti ff s whose wri tt en check

‐ o ff authorizations

could not be found (six at the time of fi ling, fi ve after discov

‐

ery in this case) that Maysteel had unlawfully withheld their

wages without authorization.

Defendants removed the case to federal court. Plainti ff s

moved to remand, arguing that they had pleaded only state

law claims and could not be forced into the federal forum. De

‐

fendants countered that plainti ff s themselves had raised an

issue of federal labor law (speci fi cally, of labor contract for

‐ mation) by alleging that defendants had “backdated” the new

collective bargaining agreement to evade the new require

‐

ments of Act 1.

The parties consented to the jurisdiction of the magistrate

judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). The judge denied remand and

later granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment. The

court held that as a ma tt er of federal law, the new collective

bargaining agreement had not been renewed, modi fi ed, or ex

‐

tended on or after the e ff ective date of Act 1. The union secu

‐ rity clause of the new agreement was therefore valid. The dis

‐

trict court held further that plainti ff s’ wage payment claims

were within the exclusive jurisdiction of the National LaborNo. 19

‐ 3142 5

Relations Board. We have jurisdiction over plainti ff s’ appeal

from that fi nal judgment. 28 U.S.C. § 1291.

II. Analysis

Plainti ff s appeal both the district court’s denial of their

motion to remand to state court and the grant of summary

judgment to defendants. Plainti ff s also ask us to certify ques

‐

tions of Wisconsin law to the Wisconsin Supreme Court under

Circuit Rule 52. We conclude that the district court correctly

denied remand and granted summary judgment. Also, there

is no controlling issue of state law to certify.

A. Federal Jurisdiction

We review de novo the district court’s denial of a motion

to remand. Schur v. L.A. Weight Loss Centers

, 577 F.3d 752, 758

(7th Cir. 2009). A motion to remand must be granted if the

case removed from state court could not have been brought in

federal court originally for lack of subject

‐ ma tt er jurisdiction.

28 U.S.C. §§ 1441(a), 1447(c). Jurisdiction in this case is based

on the district court’s jurisdiction over actions “arising under”

federal law. § 1331. Plainti ff s argue that they assert rights only

under state law, but two paths may support “arising under”

federal jurisdiction over such claims here: so

‐ called “com

‐ plete” preemption and an “embedded” federal question. The

district court took the complete preemption path, holding

principally that this case necessarily arises under § 301 of the

Labor Management Relations (Taft–Hartley) Act of 1947,

29 U.S.C. § 185. We agree with the district court’s ultimate

conclusion that it had jurisdiction and with much of its rea

‐ soning. We do not follow the signi fi cant expansion of § 3016 No. 19

‐ 3142

arguably implied by the district court’s ruling and instead fol

‐

low the “embedded question” path. 1

1. Complete Preemption?

For purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1331, a case generally “arises

under” the law that creates the plainti ff ’s cause of action.

Franchise Tax Board v. Constr. Laborers Vacation Trust for S. Cal.

,

463 U.S. 1, 8–9 (1983). As a result, a state law claim ordinarily

cannot be removed, even if it is necessarily defeated by a fed

‐

eral defense, because the federal question supporting jurisdic

‐

tion must appear on the face of the plainti ff ’s properly or

1 It may be helpful to clarify our terms. Our cases occasionally refer to

“complete” and “field” preemption interchangeably, see, e.g., Boomer v.

AT&T Corp.

, 309 F.3d 404, 417 (7th Cir. 2002) (“the doctrine of field (also

known as complete) preemption”), or suggest there is an essential connec

‐

tion between them. See Lehmann v. Brown

, 230 F.3d 916, 919 (7th Cir. 2000)

(“‘complete preemption’ is a misnomer, having nothing to do with

preemption and everything to do with federal occupation of a field”).

There is, however, a difference that is helpful to keep in mind. We have

distinguished complete preemption, which is a jurisdictional doctrine per

‐ mitting removal, from “ordinary,” defensive preemption as a matter of the

applicable substantive federal law that does not provide a basis for federal

jurisdiction. See, e.g., Smart v. Local 702 IBEW

, 562 F.3d 798, 803–04 (7th

Cir. 2009) (“A logical first step in [the complete preemption] analysis is

determining whether the state claim is displaced by federal law under an

ordinary preemption analysis.”); see also 14C Charles Alan Wright and

Arthur R. Miller et al., Federal Practice and Procedure § 3722.2 (4th ed. 1998

& supp. 2020) ( “In recent years, federal courts have drawn an important

distinction between what have come to be called the ‘complete’ preemp

‐

tion and the ‘ordinary’ preemption by federal law of a claim that appears

to be based on state law.”). In this opinion we use “complete” preemption

to refer to the doctrine that supports federal jurisdiction over claims seem

‐ ingly framed as state law claims. That is the term used by the Supreme

Court in discussing removability on the basis of federal labor law. See Cat

‐ erpillar Inc. v. Williams

, 482 U.S. 386, 393 (1987).No. 19

‐ 3142 7

“well

‐ pleaded” complaint. Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams

, 482 U.S.

386, 392–93 (1987). Congressional intent to prohibit a state law

cause of action is thus not su ffi cient to create federal subject

‐

ma tt er jurisdiction. Franchise Tax Board

, 463 U.S. at 12. But con

‐ gressional intent to displace a state law cause of action—such

that there is “no such thing as a state

‐ law claim” for violation

of the right asserted, Bene fi cial Nat’l Bank v. Anderson

, 539 U.S.

1, 11 (2003), only a federal one—is su ffi cient to create jurisdic

‐

tion. Franchise Tax Board

, 463 U.S. at 23. The state law claim is

then said to be “completely pre

‐ empted” and “is considered,

from its inception, a federal claim.” Williams

, 482 U.S. at 393.

Only a small number of federal statutes have completely

preemptive e ff ect. See Retail Property Trust v. United Brother

‐

hood of Carpenters and Joiners of Am.

, 768 F.3d 938, 946–49 & n.5

(9th Cir. 2014). First among them is § 301 of the Taft–Hartley

Act. Williams

, 482 U.S. at 393–94 (complete preemption was

fi rst recognized and “applied primarily” in context of § 301);

Avco Corp. v. Aero Lodge No. 735

, 390 U.S. 557, 560 (1968) ( fi rst

recognizing complete preemption under § 301). That statute

supplies the exclusive cause of action for all claims, no ma tt er

how denominated, having a su ffi ciently close connection to a

collective bargaining agreement governed by federal law.

Williams

, 482 U.S. at 393–94; Baker v. Kingsley

, 387 F.3d 649, 657

(7th Cir. 2004).

a. § 301 of the Taft–Hartley Act

Section 301 is a multifaceted instrument of federal labor

policy. Complete preemption is only one of its three faces.

First, § 301 contains a narrow grant of subject

‐ ma tt er jurisdic

‐

tion to district courts over suits “for violation” of collective

bargaining agreements. Textron Lycoming Reciprocating Engine

Div. v. United Auto Workers

, 523 U.S. 653, 657 (1998) (“a suit8 No. 19

‐ 3142

‘for violation of a contract’... is one fi led because a contract has

been violated ”). Second, as a consequence of the fi rst, § 301

broadly authorizes federal courts to develop a common law

of labor contracts to be applied exclusively in both state and

federal court. Allis

‐ Chalmers Corp. v. Lueck

, 471 U.S. 202, 209

(1985) (§ 301 is “a congressional mandate to the federal courts

to fashion a body of federal common law”); Local 174, Team

‐

sters v. Lucas Flour Co.

, 369 U.S. 95, 103 (1962) (“substantive

principles of federal labor law must be paramount in the area

covered by” § 301). Third, as a consequence of the second,

§ 301 completely preempts state law claims “founded directly

on rights created by collective

‐ bargaining agreements, and

also claims substantially dependent on analysis of a collec

‐

tive

‐ bargaining agreement.” Williams

, 482 U.S. at 394 (quota

‐

tion marks omi tt ed). In fewer words, “When the ‘heart of the

state law complaint is a clause in the collective bargaining

agreement,’” the complaint necessarily arises under § 301.

Atchley v. Heritage Cable Vision Assocs.

, 101 F.3d 495, 499 (7th

Cir. 1996) (brackets and ellipsis omi tt ed), quoting Williams

,

482 U.S. at 394.

The capacity of § 301 to displace state law claims depend

‐

ent on collective bargaining agreements fl ows from the com

‐ plete predominance of federal law in interpreting and enforc

‐ ing those agreements. The “negotiation and administration”

of labor contracts would be substantially impeded absent the

certainty that is derived from exclusive application of uniform

federal rules, Lucas Flour

, 369 U.S. at 103–04, and that is pro

‐

tected by parties’ ability to remove such cases to federal court.

Avco Corp.

, 390 U.S. at 560; see also Baker

, 387 F.3d at 657 (“the

federal statute will displace the state

‐ law claim to ensure uni

‐

form interpretation of collective bargaining agreements”), cit

‐ ing Atchley

, 101 F.3d at 498. But there is precisely one point ofNo. 19

‐ 3142 9

labor contract law that is by congressional design not subject

to a mandate of national uniformity: the enforceability of un

‐

ion security agreements under § 14(b) of the National Labor

Relations or Wagner Act of 1935, as amended by the Taft–

Hartley Act, 29 U.S.C. § 164(b).

b. § 14(b) of the Wagner Act

Section 8(a)(3) of the Wagner Act permits unions and em

‐ ployers to negotiate for “union shop” and “agency shop”

agreements under speci fi ed conditions while prohibiting

“closed shop” agreements as an unfair labor practice. See

29 U.S.C. § 158(a)(3); Oil, Chem. and Atomic Workers Int’l Union

v. Mobil Oil Corp.

, 426 U.S. 407, 409 n.1 (1976) (distinguishing

treatment of union, agency, and closed shops under § 8(a)(3)).

As amended by the Taft–Hartley Act, § 14(b) expressly de

‐ prives § 8(a)(3) of any preemptive force in its permissive as

‐

pect:

Nothing in this subchapter shall be construed as

authorizing the execution or application of

agreements requiring membership in a labor or

‐ ganization as a condition of employment in any

State or Territory in which such execution or ap

‐ plication is prohibited by State or Territorial

law.

29 U.S.C. § 164(b).

We have construed “agreements requiring membership in

a labor organization” to mean agreements requiring the pay

‐

ment of money to a labor organization, encompassing all

forms of union security agreements. Sweeney v. Pence

, 767 F.3d

654, 661 (7th Cir. 2014). As to all such agreements, therefore,

Congress “chose to abandon any search for uniformity” and10 No. 19

‐ 3142

“decided to su ff er a medley of a tt itudes and philosophies on

the subject.” Retail Clerks Int’l Ass’n, Local 1625 v. Schermerhorn

,

375 U.S. 96, 104–05 (1963).

As the federal interest served by complete preemption

wanes over state laws within § 14(b), the state interest subor

‐

dinated by it waxes. Schermerhorn held that an action to en

‐

force Florida’s right

‐ to

‐ work law did not allege an arguable

unfair labor practice within the exclusive jurisdiction of the

National Labor Relations Board under the broad and distinct

preemption doctrine called Garmon preemption. Schermer

‐

horn

, 375 U.S. at 103–04, declining to apply San Diego Building

Trades Council v. Garmon

, 359 U.S. 236 (1959). On the Supreme

Court’s reading of § 14(b), Congress could not have intended

to grant the states “overriding authority” to pass laws prohib

‐ iting union security agreements while withholding from them

“the power to enforce those laws.” Id. at 102–03.

c. Interpreting Defendants’ Union Security Clause

In this case, plainti ff s alleged that the company and the

union subjected them to unfair labor practices and wrongfully

withheld their wages in violation of Wisconsin law. The heart

of plainti ff s’ complaint was a clause in the collective bargain

‐ ing agreement: the union security clause. If that clause re

‐ quired Maysteel employees to “Pay any dues, fees, assess

‐

ments, or other charges or expenses of any kind or amount, or

provide anything of value, to a labor organization” as a con

‐

dition of employment, Wis. Stat. § 111.04(3)(a), then defend

‐

ants engaged in unfair labor practices and wrongfully with

‐

held wages. See id. §§ 111.04(3)(b), 111.06(1)(a), 109.03(1). 2 If it

2 This was the characterization of plaintiffs’ wage payment claims

adopted by the district court. Plaintiffs dispute it on appeal. We assumeNo. 19

‐ 3142 11

did not, they did not. In recognition of this fact, plainti ff s three

times pleaded a “real, actual and justiciable controversy

... as

to the Plainti ff s’ and the Defendants’ rights and obligations

under” defendants’ collective bargaining agreement. In any

other context, these allegations about the collective bargain

‐ ing agreement would establish complete preemption under

§ 301.

But this context is di ff erent. First, uniquely when applying

state right

‐ to

‐ work laws, there is no federal reason why even

identical union security clauses need to be interpreted uni

‐ formly in di ff erent states. States are free to prohibit as much

or as li tt le as they will when it comes to union security agree

‐

ments as long as they stay within the bounds set by § 14(b).

See, e.g., Oil Workers

, 426 U.S. at 414 (application of Texas law

fell outside § 14(b)); Sweeney

, 767 F.3d at 661 (application of

Indiana law fell within § 14(b)). Second, as with Garmon

preemption, see Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. San Diego Cty. Dist.

Council of Carpenters

, 436 U.S. 180, 192 (1978), complete

preemption under § 301 deprives the plainti ff not only of a

state forum but also of state remedies. Claims completely

preempted under § 301 are remi tt ed fi rst of all to the remedial

scheme (usually arbitration) provided by the collective bar

‐ gaining agreement. See, e.g., Lueck

, 471 U.S. at 220–21; Atchley

,

101 F.3d at 501–02; Brazinski v. Amoco Petrol. Additives Co.

,

6 F.3d 1176, 1179–81 (7th Cir. 1993). To fi nd complete preemp

‐

tion of claims based on a union security clause allegedly pro

‐

hibited by a state law within § 14(b) would thus, contrary to

Schermerhorn

, deny the states “the power to enforce” laws

its correctness for the sake of this discussion and address the point more

fully below.12 No. 19

‐ 3142

Congress has expressly authorized them to make. 375 U.S. at

102.

d. Determining the Time Defendants’ Agreement Was

Formed

Defendants counter that the heart of plainti ff s’ complaint

depends on the law of § 301 in a second sense. They argue the

complaint depends not so much on the meaning of a clause in

a collective bargaining agreement as on the agreement’s exist

‐

ence at a given point in time—the e ff ective date of the Wis

‐

consin Act 1. Speci fi cally, if defendants’ 2015

− 2018 collective

bargaining agreement was not “renewed, modi fi ed, or ex

‐

tended” after March 10, 2015, the prohibitions of Act 1 did not

apply to it. See 2015 Wis. Act 1 § 13 (“upon the renewal, mod

‐

i fi cation, or extension of the agreement”). So plainti ff s’ claim

depends on a question that, as it happens, has long been rec

‐ ognized as being governed by a uniform rule of federal law.

Deciding whether and when a collective bargaining agree

‐

ment is formed and binding calls for a uniform federal rule.

Mohr v. Metro East Mfg. Co.

, 711 F.2d 69, 71 (7th Cir. 1983) (“the

Supreme Court has opted for uniform rules for questions of

[labor] contract formation”).

Whether the federal interest in uniform contract formation

rules under § 301 is enough, under the doctrine of complete

preemption, to displace entirely Wisconsin’s interest in en

‐ forcing the right

‐ to

‐ work provisions of Act 1 by the remedial

scheme of its choice is a di ffi cult question. We do not need to

decide it here. We follow instead the district court’s insight

that appears in its opinion as an alternative or additional

ground for removal and federal arising

‐ under jurisdiction.

The controlling importance of the contract formation question

embedded in plainti ff s’ claims evokes the “embedded federalNo. 19

‐ 3142 13

question” doctrine recognized by Grable & Sons Metal Prod

‐

ucts., Inc. v. Darue Engineering & Manufacturing

, 545 U.S. 308

(2005), among other cases.

Before turning to Grable

, we note that Oil Workers

, relied

on by defendants, does not compel a di ff erent preemption

analysis. In that case, the employer sued the union in federal

court “under § 301” for a declaratory judgment that the union

security provision in the parties’ collective bargaining agree

‐

ment violated Texas’s right

‐ to

‐ work law. 426 U.S. at 410. The

district court’s jurisdiction went unquestioned in the Supreme

Court’s opinion. The Court has taught that such unquestioned

assumptions of jurisdiction “have no precedential e ff ect.”

Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Be tt er Environment

, 523 U.S. 83, 91

(1998). Further, jurisdiction in Oil Workers could be explained

equally well by the rule that the natural defendant to a hypo

‐

thetical coercive suit may bring an action in federal court for

declaratory relief if the natural plainti ff ’s suit would arise un

‐

der federal law, see NewPage Wis. Sys. Inc v. United Steel Work

‐

ers

, 651 F.3d 775, 777–78 (7th Cir. 2011)—assuming it was im

‐

minent that the employer would be sued by the union in a

coercive suit arising under § 301 for the employer’s breach of

the union security provision. Cf. Textron

, 523 U.S. at 661. Ei

‐

ther way, the silent assumption of jurisdiction in Oil Workers

tells us nothing about complete preemption in this case. Oil

Workers is not controlling.

2. Embedded Federal Question

The “creation test” fi rst articulated in American Well Works

Co. v. Layne & Bowler Co.

, 241 U.S. 257, 260 (1916) (“A suit

arises under the law that creates the cause of action”), “ac

‐

counts for the vast bulk of suits that arise under federal law.”

Gunn v. Minton

, 568 U.S. 251, 257 (2013), citing Franchise Tax14 No. 19

‐ 3142

Board v. Constr. Laborers Vacation Trust for S. Cal.

, 463 U.S. 1, 9

(1983). For nearly a century, however, the Supreme Court has

decided a “special and small category” of cases allowing ju

‐

risdiction where the plainti ff ’s claim arises under state law

but depends upon an embedded question of federal law.

Gunn

, 568 U.S. at 258. See, e.g., Grable & Sons Metal Prods., Inc.

v. Darue Eng’g and Mfg.

, 545 U.S. 308 (2005); Smith v. Kansas

City Title & Trust Co.

, 225 U.S. 180 (1921). One of the enduring

challenges in the law of federal jurisdiction is to navigate the

boundary between this line of cases and the more general

standards of arising

‐ under law.

State law claims that are not displaced by federal law may

still arise under federal law for purposes of § 1331 if they “im

‐ plicate signi fi cant federal issues.” Grable

, 545 U.S. at 312. A

plainti ff ’s complaint is said to present an “embedded” federal

issue supporting federal

‐ question jurisdiction if it raises a fed

‐

eral issue that is “(1) necessarily raised, (2) actually disputed,

(3) substantial, and (4) capable of resolution in federal court

without disrupting the federal

‐ state balance approved by

Congress.” Gunn

, 568 U.S. at 258. Plainti ff s’ complaint in this

case satis fi ed all four elements of this test.

a. Federal Issue

The federal question at the heart of plainti ff s’ complaint

was, as they twice pleaded, whether “the Defendants’ 2012

CBA was renewed, modi fi ed, [or] extended on or after March

11, 2015.” This language was taken from Wisconsin’s Act 1,

leading plainti ff s to argue that it raises a question of only state

law: whether the state statute applies to defendants’ 2015–

2018 collective bargaining agreement. The problem for plain

‐

ti ff s is that that question necessarily asks when defendants’

agreement became binding in all other respects, in whole (byNo. 19

‐ 3142 15

renewal or extension) or in part (by modi fi cation). That is a

question of federal labor law. Application of the state statute

must depend on this question of federal law if the state statu

‐

tory language is to serve its apparent purpose of avoiding an

unconstitutional impairment of contracts. See Sweeney v.

Pence

, 767 F.3d 654, 666–67 (7th Cir. 2014).

Wisconsin is not entitled to give an independent answer to

this question, di ff erent from federal law. Mohr v. Metro East

Mfg. Co.

, 711 F.2d 69, 71 (7th Cir. 1983) (“the Supreme Court

has opted for uniform rules for questions of [labor] contract

formation”); see also, e.g., Operating Engineers Local 139 Health

Bene fi t Fund v. Gustafson Constr. Corp.

, 258 F.3d 645, 649 (7th

Cir. 2001); Atchley v. Heritage Cable Vision Assocs.

, 101 F.3d 495,

500 n.2 (7th Cir. 1996). Wisconsin law could not give a di ff er

‐

ent answer on when a labor contract begins to bind the parties

without threatening the certainty and uniformity guaranteed

by § 301 of the Taft–Hartley Act. See Local 174, Teamsters v. Lu

‐

cas Flour Co.

, 369 U.S. 95, 103–04 (1962). Federal law controls.

b. Necessarily Raised

We proceed to Grable ’s four

‐ part test. First, the federal is

‐

sue in this case is necessarily raised on the face of plainti ff s’

complaint. Plainti ff s’ claims for unfair labor practices and

wrongful wage withholding could succeed only if Act 1 inval

‐

idated defendants’ union security clause. 3 And Act 1 invali

‐

dated defendants’ union security clause only if defendants’

collective bargaining agreement was renewed, modi fi ed, or

extended after March 10, 2015. See Gunn

, 568 U.S. at 259 (“To

prevail on his legal malpractice claim

... Minton must show

3 Regarding plaintiffs’ wage withholding claims, see n.2, supra.16 No. 19

‐ 3142

that he would have prevailed in his federal patent infringe

‐

ment case”).

c. Actually Disputed

Second, the federal issue is actually disputed. “[I]ndeed,

on the merits, it is the central point of dispute.” Gunn

, 568 U.S.

at 259. Plainti ff s said a collective bargaining agreement is re

‐

newed, modi fi ed, or extended (that is, formed) upon execu

‐

tion; defendants said it can be formed upon rati fi cation. In

fact, this is the only disputed question.

d. Substantial

Third, the federal issue is substantial “in the relevant

sense.” Gunn

, 568 U.S. at 260. The relevant sense of substanti

‐ ality is not the importance of the federal issue to the lawsuit.

“The substantiality inquiry under Grable looks instead to the

importance of the issue to the federal system as a whole.” Id.

In Grable

, the substantial federal issue in a state action to quiet

title was whether a federal agency’s sale of the contested

property had been valid under federal law. “The Govern

‐

ment’s ‘direct interest in the availability of a federal forum to

vindicate its own administrative action’ made the question

‘an important issue of federal law that sensibly belonged in a

federal court.’” Id. at 260–61 (brackets omi tt ed), quoting Gra

‐

ble

, 545 U.S. at 315. In Smith v. Kansas City Title & Trust Co.

, the

substantial federal issue in a state shareholder suit was

whether certain classes of federal bonds were void because

issued under an unconstitutional federal statute. 225 U.S. 180,

195 (1921), discussed in Gunn

, 568 U.S. at 261.

In this case, the importance of the contract formation issue

to the federal system as a whole is the very reason federal law

applies to begin with: the “negotiation and administration” ofNo. 19

‐ 3142 17

collective bargaining agreements would be substantially im

‐ peded, contrary to federal labor policy, if employers doing

business in Wisconsin could not be certain when their collec

‐

tive bargaining agreements become enforceable because two

di ff erent legal regimes might apply. Lucas Flour

, 369 U.S. at

103.

e. Capable of Resolution Without Disruption

Fourth and fi nally, the federal issue can be resolved in fed

‐

eral courts without disturbing the congressionally approved

“balance of federal and state judicial responsibilities.” Gunn

,

568 U.S. at 264, quoting Grable

, 545 U.S. at 314. Any claim suf

‐

fi ciently dependent on a collective bargaining agreement is

removable, period, apart from § 14(b) of the Wagner Act. But

state power under § 14(b) “begins only with actual negotia

‐

tion and execution of the type of agreement described by

§ 14(b).” Retail Clerks Int’l Ass’n, Local 1625 v. Schermerhorn

,

375 U.S. 96, 105 (1963). That threshold issue is decisive in this

case. And unlike complete preemption, removal under Grable

does not displace state law or preclude state remedies; it

leaves intact the states’ legitimate enforcement interests under

§ 14(b). See Schermerhorn

, 375 U.S. at 102. Removal here thus

fi ts precisely the congressional division of labor.

3. Conclusion on Jurisdiction

Plainti ff s’ complaint was not completely preempted under

§ 301 only because it required interpretation of defendants’

union security clause. Without deciding whether it was com

‐ pletely preempted because it required determining when de

‐

fendants’ collective bargaining agreement was formed, we

conclude this federal issue was su ffi cient to support arising

‐

under jurisdiction and removal under the embedded question18 No. 19

‐ 3142

theory in the Grable line of cases. The district court properly

denied remand to state court.

B. Motion for Summary Judgment

On the merits, we review de novo the district court’s de

‐

termination that there were no genuine disputes of material

fact and defendants were entitled to judgment as a ma tt er of

law. Riley v. City of Kokomo

, 909 F.3d 182, 187–88 (7th Cir.

2018); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). Here, we may be briefer. Wis

‐

consin’s Act 1 did not apply to defendants’ 2015

− 2018 collec

‐

tive bargaining agreement because the agreement was not re

‐

newed, modi fi ed, or extended after March 10, 2015. To show

the contrary, plainti ff s would need to point to some contrac

‐ tually signi fi cant event occurring after that date which ef

‐

fected a change in either the meaning or duration of the rights

and obligations under the agreement. They have not done so.

1. Unfair Labor Practice Claims

Federal law allows a collective bargaining agreement to

take e ff ect before the parties have formally executed a wri tt en

document. “All that is required” to make a collective bargain

‐ ing agreement binding is “conduct manifesting an intention

to abide and be bound by the terms of [the] agreement.” Brick

‐ layers Local 21 of Ill. Apprenticeship and Training Program v. Ban

‐

ner Restoration, Inc.

, 385 F.3d 761, 766 (7th Cir. 2004) (alteration

omi tt ed), quoting Gariup v. Birchler Ceiling & Interior Co.

,

777 F.2d 370, 373 (7th Cir. 1985), and citing Operating Engineers

Local 139 Health Bene fi t Fund v. Gustafson Constr. Corp.

,

258 F.3d 645, 650 (7th Cir. 2001), and Atchley v. Heritage Cable

Vision Assocs.

, 101 F.3d 495, 500 n.2 (7th Cir. 1996), among oth

‐

ers. This rule is implicit in, if not mandated by, § 8(d) of the

Wagner Act. See 29 U.S.C. § 158(d) (requiring “execution of aNo. 19

‐ 3142 19

wri tt en contract incorporating any agreement reached if re

‐ quested by either party” as part of duty to bargain collec

‐ tively). The parties may not even be able to contract around it.

See NLRB v. South Fla. Hotel & Motel Ass’n

, 751 F.2d 1571, 1581

n.14 (11th Cir. 1985) (“This clause [providing that the contract

would become e ff ective upon execution] notwithstanding,

the Union and the Association created a valid and enforceable

contract upon rank and fi le rati fi cation.”).

In this case, the union’s February 28, 2015 rati fi cation vote

manifested its acceptance of the proposed agreement that had

been concluded by the parties’ negotiators the previous day.

The rati fi cation was “the last act necessary” to make the agree

‐

ment binding. Mack Trucks, Inc. v. United Auto Workers

,

856 F.2d 579, 592 (2d Cir. 1988). Plainti ff s point to no renego

‐

tiation of the agreement’s terms between the date of rati fi ca

‐

tion and the date of execution (March 18) or any other day on

or after the e ff ective date of Act 1 (March 11). The execution

in itself did not add to or subtract from defendants’ agree

‐

ment. As between the parties, its terms had the same force and

e ff ect on March 19 as they had on March 17.

We agree with the district court that plainti ff s’ heavy reli

‐

ance on Appalachian Shale Products Co.

, 121 N.L.R.B. 1160

(1958), is not persuasive. The National Labor Relations Board

held in that case that an unsigned collective bargaining agree

‐

ment did not bar a competing union’s petition to represent the

employer’s employees. Id. at 1161–62. This was a speci fi c ap

‐ plication of the “contract bar rule,” a discretionary procedure

adopted by the Board for reconciling the Wagner Act’s “goals

of promoting industrial stability and employee freedom of

choice” in the context of representation petitions. NLRB v.

Dominick’s Finer Foods, Inc.

, 28 F.3d 678, 683 (7th Cir. 1994).20 No. 19

‐ 3142

The Appalachian Shale rule represents the Board’s judgment of

how best to serve “the e ff ectiveness of its contract bar poli

‐

cies.” 121 N.L.R.B. at 1161. It says nothing about when a col

‐

lective bargaining agreement begins to bind the parties to it.

We agree as well with the district court that plainti ff s do

no be tt er to rely on Board decisions applying the rule against

retroactively enforcing union security clauses, see Namm’s

Inc.

, 102 N.L.R.B. 466, 469 (1953), overruled on other grounds,

Kaiser Steel Corp.

, 125 N.L.R.B. 1039, 1041 n.2 (1959), or the ex

‐ emption from the prohibition on closed shops for any collec

‐

tive bargaining agreement “entered into” before the Taft–

Hartley Act’s e ff ective date unless “renewed or extended” af

‐

terward. See United Hoisting Co.

, 92 N.L.R.B. 1642, 1643 n.2

(1951).

None of these decisions required execution of a wri tt en

document to make a collective bargaining agreement binding.

Decisions in the la tt er line proceeded from the unremarkable

and uncontested assumption that execution is often a reliable

marker of contract formation, but they did not hold that exe

‐

cution is required. See United Hoisting Co.

, 92 N.L.R.B. at 1644;

Spiegel, Inc.

, 91 N.L.R.B. 647, 662 (1950); Salant & Salant, Inc.

,

87 N.L.R.B. 215, 216–218 (1949).

Decisions in the retroactivity line prohibited unions from

retroactively demanding dues or fees for any period before

the collective bargaining agreement was formed even if new

wage rates were made e ff ective as of an earlier date. Plainti ff s

note the Board’s use of “execution” in International Chemical

Workers : “It also is well established that the date of execution,

not the e ff ective date, of a collective

‐ bargaining agreement

governs the validity of such a [union security] clause.” Inter

‐

national Chemical Workers, Local No. 112

, 237 N.L.R.B. 864, 865No. 19

‐ 3142 21

(1978), citing Local No. 25, Teamsters

, 220 N.L.R.B. 76, 77 (1975).

The Board in that case referred to “execution” in distinguish

‐ ing between contract formation and retroactive e ff ective dates

where no collective bargaining agreement had been in place

for a time. The Board was not distinguishing between for

‐

mation by rati fi cation on one hand and formation by wri tt en

execution on the other. The same was true in the cited Local

No. 25, Teamsters

. These retroactivity decisions simply did not

address when labor contract formation happens. On that ques

‐

tion, the Board continues to adhere to the rule we follow here,

that o ff er and acceptance, not execution, make a labor con

‐

tract. See, e.g., YWCA of Western Mass.

, 349 N.L.R.B. 762, 763

& n.8 (2007).

Applying established law on contract formation, defend

‐

ants’ collective bargaining agreement here was thus formed

upon rati fi cation on February 28, 2015. Neither execution on

March 18 nor any contractual event before or after disturbed

its terms. Because defendants’ agreement was thus not re

‐

newed, modi fi ed, or extended after March 10, Act 1 did not

invalidate its union security clause. Defendants were entitled

to judgment as a ma tt er of law.

2. Wage Payment Claim

We noted above that the correct characterization of plain

‐

ti ff s’ wage payment claim is contested. See nn. 2–3, supra. The

Wisconsin wage payment statute generally requires employ

‐

ers every month to pay “all wages earned by the employee to

a day not more than 31 days prior to the date of payment.”

Wis. Stat. § 109.03(1). State law provides a private right of ac

‐

tion to recover the amount of wages due and unpaid and up

to double damages. § 109.11(2)(a)–(b). The statute does not

apply to employees who are “covered under a valid collective22 No. 19

‐ 3142

bargaining agreement establishing a di ff erent frequency for

wage payments, including deferred payments exercised at the

option of employees.” § 109.03(1)(a).

In this case, plainti ff s complained that Maysteel wrong

‐ fully withheld the union’s dues or fair share fees from their

paychecks “without authorization.” If that claim depended

on holding invalid the union security term of the collective

bargaining agreement—as the district court thought it did, at

least in part—it failed because the union security clause was

valid for the reasons explained above.

Any other framing of the claim is self

‐ defeating, since it

assumes the union was entitled to the fees deducted from

plainti ff s’ paychecks and leaves no room to recover wages

that were “due” but “unpaid.” Contra Wis. Stat.

§ 109.11(2)(a)–(b). And any other framing of the claim, though

not depending on the embedded federal question supporting

jurisdiction of the unfair labor practice claims, would be

within the district court’s sound and unchallenged assertion

of supplemental jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

But we agree with the district court that the assertion of

supplemental jurisdiction was redundant. Plainti ff s were

“covered under a valid collective bargaining agreement estab

‐ lishing a di ff erent frequency for wage payments, including

deferred payments exercised at the option of employees.”

Wis. Stat. § 109.03(1)(a). Plainti ff s therefore needed to invoke

the collective bargaining agreement (either the old or the new

agreement, depending on the claim). Construed as a claim for

unauthorized deduction in violation of the agreement’s

check

‐ o ff provision, plainti ff s’ wage payment claim arose un

‐

der § 301 and failed on the merits for failure to exhaust the

agreed private remedies. See Allis

‐ Chalmers Corp. v. Lueck

,No. 19

‐ 3142 23

471 U.S. 202, 220–21 (1985). Construed as based speci fi cally on

the employer’s failure to keep records of plainti ff s’ check

‐ o ff

authorizations while continuing to make deductions, the

claim alleged an arguable unfair labor practice within the

Board’s exclusive jurisdiction under San Diego Building Trades

Council v. Garmon

, 359 U.S. 236 (1959); see 29 U.S.C. § 186(c).

Plainti ff s basically conceded as much by fi ling unfair labor

practice charges with the Board before bringing this lawsuit.

And because the Board would not order the damages remedy

sought by plainti ff s on these facts, see Mode O’Day Co.

, 290

N.L.R.B. 1234, 1234 (1988) (“This approach results in the par

‐

ties being placed in the posture they would have been in had

no unfair labor practices occurred”), any state damages rem

‐ edy was preempted. Wisconsin Dep’t of Industry v. Gould Inc.

,

475 U.S. 282, 286 (1986) (“the Garmon rule prevents States

... from providing their own regulatory or judicial remedies for

conduct prohibited or arguably prohibited by” the Wagner

Act). That is so, anything in Act 1 or elsewhere in Wisconsin

law notwithstanding. Machinists District Ten v. Allen

, 904 F.3d

490, 503–07 (7th Cir. 2018). On any theory of the wage pay

‐

ment claim, therefore, dismissal was proper.

C. Motion to Certify

Under Circuit Rule 52, plainti ff s fi led a motion asking us

to certify two questions to the Wisconsin Supreme Court:

whether Act 1 applies to defendants’ collective bargaining

agreement and whether Maysteel’s dues check

‐ o ff s without

wri tt en records of authorization violated the Wisconsin wage

payment statute. As explained above, state law does not con

‐

trol either question here. States are not authorized to regulate

the formation of a collective bargaining agreement simply be

‐

cause it is alleged to contain a prohibited union security24 No. 19

‐ 3142

clause. Retail Clerks Int’l Ass’n, Local 1625 v. Schermerhorn

,

375 U.S. 96, 105 (1963) (state power under § 14(b) “begins only

with actual negotiation and execution of the type of agree

‐

ment described by § 14(b)”). And whether Maysteel’s dues

check

‐ o ff s were “without authorization” is a ma tt er for either

the arbitrator under § 301 or the National Labor Relations

Board under Garmon

. The motion to certify is denied.

Accordingly, the district court correctly held that plain

‐

ti ff s’ claims arose under federal law and that plainti ff s were

not entitled to a judicial remedy on the merits. The court’s

judgment of dismissal is AFFIRMED.