File Na me: 08a0205n.06 Filed: Apr il 17, 2008 NOT RECOMMENDED F OR FUL L -TEXT PUB L I CATI ON

No. 07-3511 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F O R T H E S IX T H C IR C U IT CHEL L I S ACKERS , et al., Pla int if fs -A pp e lla nts , v. CEL E S T I C A CO R P
. a n d L U C E N T TECHNOL OGI ES, I

NC., De fe nd ants -A

pp e lle e s. ON APPEALFROM THE UN I TE D ST AT ES D I STR I CT CO UR T F OR

TH E SO UT HE RN D IS T R IC T O F O H IO

/ Be fore : MARTI

N, GI BB ONS, and GRI FF I N, Circuit J udg es BO YC E F. M AR TI

N, J R., Circuit J udg e. A g roup of f ormer e mploy ees sue d Celestica Corporation and L

ucent Te chnolog ies alleg ing fraud under state law. The district cour t dismi ssed the c la ims a s p re e mpt e d und e r t he Natio na l L a

bo r R e latio ns Ac t. We AF F I RM. I The followingfac ts are a lleg ed i n Ac k ers’ complaint. Lucent ope rate d a manuf actur ing fac ility in Colum bus, Ohio until 2001 when it sold the fac ility to Ce lestica. Duringand prior to the transition, Lucent stated it planned to “kee p the work and jobs in Columbus.” Lucent a lso offer ed
ear ly retire ment packa g es prior to the sale to r educe its wor kforc e. Celestica and the un i on
re pr e se nti ngthe fa c ili ty ’s re ma ini nge mpl oy e e s th e n ne g oti a te d a col le c tiv e ba rg a ini nga g re e me nt.No. 07-3511

Ac k e rs e t al . v . Ce le

sti c a Co rp e t. a l. Pag e 2 Celestica a

nd Lucent a ssured the union that Celestica would rema in in Col umbus for at lea st five y ear s and would incre ase pr oduction. I n return, the union acc epted lowe r wa g es and othe r contra ct
conce ssions. Once in control of the facility , Celestica had the former L ucent employ ees train employ ees from its other fa cilities in the specialized manufa cturingtechniques the fo rm er Lucent e mploy ees ha d ma ste re d. B y

June of 20 02 , Ce le sti c a

be g an r e loc a tin g so me of the manu factur ingto i ts Cana dia n fa c ili tie s ba se d o n it s n e wl y a c qu ir e d e xpe rt ise . Ce le sti c a the n a nn ounc e d it

wo uld c los e t h e C o l u mb u s f

a c i l i t y i nO c t o b e r

o f 2 0 0 2 an d r e l o c a t e t h e r e m a i n i n g w o r k t o c h e a p e r f a c i l i t i e s . It laid off a ll the employ ees a nd sold the fac ility

back to L

ucent. A g roup of e mploy ees f iled suit in Ohio st ate c ourt on M ay 10, 2006 alleg ing f raud, fra udulent inducement, and a viol ation of publ ic pol icy
. Celestica removed the case to fede ral c ourt based on diversity and filed a mot ion for dism issal under F eder al Rules of Civil P roce dure 12( b)(1) and 12(b) (6). The distr ict court g rante d the motion, finding that the e mploy ees’ claims wer e pree mpted from its jurisdiction by the National L abor Relations Act beca use the a lleg ations were arguably a violation of the Ac t. The employ ees the n appea led to this Court on April 20, 2007. II I n a motion to dismiss under F eder al Rule of Civil P roce dure 12( b)(1) for lac k of jurisdiction
on the fa c e of

the c omp la int , th is C ourt re vie ws the de c isi on of the dis tr ic t c ourt de novo wh ile
acc epting the plaintiffs’ alleg ations as true. See RMI Ti tanium Co. v. W estinghouse Elec . Corp., 78 F. 3 d 1 1 2 5 , 1 1 3 4 (6 t hC i r. 1 9 9 6 ) ( qu o t i n g Mortensen v

. First Fe deral Sav. and Loan Ass’n, 549 F.2d 884, 890-91 (3d Cir. 1977))
.No. 07-3511

Ac k e rs e t al . v . Ce le

sti c a Co rp e t. a l. Pag e 3 Claims are pre empted by the National L abor Relations Act when the a ctivities complained of are argua bly c ov e re d b y the Ac t un de r 2 9 U .S. C. § 15 8( d) (§ 8 o f t he Ac t) . “ Whe n a

n a c tiv ity is argu a b ly s u b je c t t o § 7 o r

§ 8 o f th e A c t, th e St a te s a s w e ll a s th e f e d e r a l c o u rts mu s t d e f

e r to the
e xclu siv e c omp e te nc e of

the Natio na l L a

bo r Re latio ns B oa

rd if the da ng e r o f s tate int e rf

e re nc e wi th
n a ti o n a l p o li c y is to b e av e rte d .” San Diego Bldg. Trades Council, Millmen’s Union, Local 2020 v. Garmon, 359 U.S. 236, 245 (1959). Thus “[w]he n i t i s cl ea r o r may fairly be assumed that the activities . . . constitute an unfa ir labor pr actice under § 8,” pree mption applies. Id. at 244. I n this case, r elief f

rom the alleg ed misconduct unde rlyi n g t h e employ ees’ claims may be found throug h § 158 protec tions. S ection 158(d) require s the “e mploy er and the represe ntative of the employ ees to mee t at rea sonable times and c onfer in good f aith with respe ct to wag es, hours, a nd other ter ms and co n d i t i o n s o f employ ment, or the ne g otiation of an ag ree ment, or any question arisingthere under.” A unilatera l action or ba rg aining in bad faith conce rning a subjec t of mandatory barg aining violates 29 U.S.C. § 158(d). Se e Nat ’l Lab or Re lat ion s B d. v . Ka tz , 369 U.S. 736, 743 (1 96 2) . Su

bje c ts o f m and a tor

y ba rg a ini nginc lud e the te rm s of a c oll e c tiv e ba

rg a ini nga g re e me nt,
s e e 2 9 U. S
. C
. § 158(d), the r esults or eff ects of a decision to shut down a fa cility , see First Nat ’l Maint. Corp . v. Nat’l Labor Relations Bd. , 452 U.S. 666, 679 n.15 (1981), and r elocation of barg aining unit work, see Taylor W arehouse Corp. v. Nat’l Labor Relations Bd. , 98 F.3d 892, 901 (6 th C ir . 1 99 6) . Ce le sti c a a lle g e dly a c te d f ra ud ule ntl y by in du cin g the e mpl oy e e s to sta y wi th promises of continued w ork while having no intention of ke eping the facility open any longe r than
ne c e ssa ry to a c qu ir e the e mpl oy e e s’ sp e c ia lize d k no wl e dg e . Ce les tic a

a lle g e dly ma de state me nts about its c ommitm ent to the Columbus oper ation both before and af ter e nteringinto the Coll ectiveNo. 07-3511

Ac k e rs e t al . v . Ce le

sti c a Co rp e t. a l. Pag e 4 B arg a ini ngAg re e me nt, y e t tr ans fe rr e d th e wo rk to o the r f a c ili tie s. Th is co nd

uc t wou ld r e pr e se nt a failure to barg ain in g ood faith re g ardingeac h of the a bove mandatory

subjects of ba

rg aining , and there fore a viol ation of § 158(d). B eca use such c onduct constitutes an unfa ir labor pr actice under § 158, the claims base d on that conduct must be hea rd bef ore the National L abor Relations Boar d, and not in district court. Th e e mpl oy e e s a

rgue on a pp e a l tha t the dis tr ic t c ourt ov e r- sim pli fi e d th e ir

c la ims and

a s a result e r r e d in g r an ti n g th e mo ti o nto d is mi s s b a s e d o np r e e mp ti o n . Sp e c if

ic a ll y , th e e mp lo y ees po int to t he de c isi on

to c los e the pla

nt d e sp ite c on tin

uin g a ssu ra nc e s, ma de a ft e r the y e nte re d into the Collective B arg aining Ag ree ment, that the plant would re main open for at least five y ear s. The employ ees a

rgue that bec ause the fra

ud continued afte r they enter ed int o the Collective B arg aining Ag ree ment, that continuing f raud w ould not be actionable un d er § 1 5 8 , and is there fore not pree mpted. This Court, however , has found suc h continuing a cts of fr au d t o be pre empted in the past. See Serrano v. Jones & Laughlin St eel Co. , 790 F.2d 1279, 1286- 87 (6th Cir. 1986) (holding that fra udulent statements per

taining to the c losure of a fac ility made subseque nt to a collective barg aining ag ree ment implicated a duty to ba rg ain in g ood faith over the eff ects of the closure) . The
em p l o y ee s ar gu e fu rt h er t h at t h e d ec i s i o n t o cl o s e a p l an ti s n o tt h e s u b j ec to f m an d at o ry

b ar gai n i n g, and ther efor e is not c overe d by § 158. I t is true that the decision to c lose a plant is not ge nera lly the
s u b ject of ma

ndatory barg aining
. See V

oilas v. Gen. Motors Corp. , 1 7 0 F
. 3 d 3 6 7 , 3 7 9 ( 3 d Cir. 1999). Howe ver, r eca sting the c omplaint as one about plant c losure does not a lt er t he under ly ing conduct, whic h rema ins arguably a violation of § 158 for

the rea sons stated above. See Se rrano , 790No. 07-3511

Ac k e rs e t al . v . Ce le

sti c a Co rp e t. a l. Pag e 5 F .2 d at 12 87 . B e c a

us e the c on du c t ne e d on ly be “ argua bly” a vio latio n of §1 58 fo r p re e mpt ion to apply , the employ ees c laims are pr eempted in this ca se. III Be cause their cla ims are “ arguably ” cove red by the National L abor Relations Act, we AFF I RM the decision of the district cour t dismi ssing the case for lac k of subject matter jurisdiction.