Document: 512 U.S. 246114 S.Ct. 2239129 L.Ed.2d 203 HAWAIIAN AIRLINES, INC., Petitioner,v.Grant T. NORRIS. Paul J. FINAZZO, Howard Ogden, Hatsuo Honma, Petitioners, v. Grant No. 92-2058. Supreme Court of the United States Argued April 28, 1994. Decided June 20, Syllabus * Respondent Norris was terminated from his job as an aircraft mechanic by petitioner Hawaiian Airlines, Inc. (HAL), after refusing to sign a maintenance record, required collective-bargaining agreement (CBA), for plane he considered unsafe, and reporting concerns Federal Aviation Administration. In separate state-court suits against HAL its officers, also petitioners, alleged, inter alia, that had been wrongfully discharged in violation public policy expressed Act implementing regulations Hawaii's Whistleblower Protection Act. The court dismissed these tort claims pre-empted Railway Labor Act's (RLA's) mandatory arbitral mechanism so-called "minor" disputes, which grow "out grievances or out interpretation application agreements concerning [pay rates], rules, working conditions," 45 U.S.C. § 153 First (i). State reversed, concluding (i)'s plain language does not support pre-emption disputes independent labor agreement, interpreting opinion Consolidated Rail Corp. Executives' Assn., 491 299, 109 2477, 105 250, limit RLA involving contractually defined rights. rejected petitioners' argument were because resort CBA necessary determine whether insubordination, pointing Lingle Norge Division Magic Chef, Inc., 486 399, 108 1877, 100 410, this held Management Relations Act, 1947 (LMRA), pre-empts state law only if state-law claim is dependent on CBA, purely factual questions about employee's conduct employer's motives do require such agreement's terms. Held: pre-empt Norris' causes action. Pp. ____. (a) minor contemplated are those grounded CBA. See, e.g., Corp., U.S., at 305, S.Ct., 2481. standard resolving has emerged relevant cases, see Atchison, & S.F.R. Co. Buell, 480 557, 107 1410, 94 563, cause action it involves rights obligations exist This virtually identical employed cases 301 LMRA. Given convergence two standards, provides appropriate framework addressing pre-emption, — existence potential CBA-based remedy deprive employee remedies available under adopted resolve claims. Elgin, E.R. Burley, 325 711, 65 1282, 89 L.Ed. 1886; 302, 2480, distinguished. (b) Under Lingle, Petitioners' foreclosed Lingle's teaching issue actions make element discharge question. Similarly, failure record determination 74 Haw. 648, 847 P.2d 263 (1993) (first case), 235, 842 634 (1992) (second affirmed. BLACKMUN, J., delivered unanimous Court. Kenneth B. Hipp, Honolulu, HI, argued petitioners. Susan Oki Mollway, respondent. Richard H. Seamon, Washington, DC, amicus curiae, special leave Justice BLACKMUN 1 case scope federal (RLA), 151 et seq. RLA, extended 1936 cover airline industry, Apr. 10, 1936, ch. 166, 49 Stat. 1189; §§ 181-188, sets up handle "growing rates pay, question who certify safety unsafe Administration may pursue wrongful discharge, seek redress through RLA's mechanism. We hold 2 licensed (FAA). His mechanic's license authorizes him approve airplane return service made, supervised, inspected certain repairs performed plane. See Certification: Airmen Other Than Flight Crewmembers, 14 CFR 65.85 65.87 (1987). If any did conform FAA regulations, could suspend revoke license. Maintenance, Preventive Rebuilding Alteration, 43.12 (1992). 3 On February 2, 1987, respondent hired (HAL). Many terms employment governed (CBA) negotiated between carrier International Association Machinists Aerospace Workers. respondent's duties included inspecting repairing all parts engine. July 15, during routine preflight inspection DC-9 plane, noticed one tires worn. When removed wheel, discovered axle sleeve, should have mirror-smooth, scarred grooved. damaged sleeve landing gear fail. recommended be replaced, but supervisor ordered sanded returned done, flew scheduled. At end shift, refused repair satisfactorily fit fly. 43.9(a) immediately suspended pending termination hearing. went home called report problem with sleeve.1 4 then invoked grievance procedure outlined "Step 1" hearing 31, 1987. Petitioner accused claiming refusal violated CBA's provision "may work records connection performs." relied guarantees without just disciplined perform health laws. officer insubordination. 5 Still conforming procedures, appealed termination, seeking 3" Before took place, offered reduce punishment suspension warned "any further instance [his] responsible manner" result discharge. respond offer, nor, apparently, take steps procedures. 6 December 18, filed suit Hawaii circuit court. complaint wrongful-discharge torts Haw.Rev.Stat. 378-61 378-69 (1988).2 He alleged breached agreement. District Hawaii, breach contract remanded other trial policy, holding it, too, exclusive certified order final permit immediate appeal. 7 meantime, second lawsuit court, naming defendants three HAL's officers allegedly directed, confirmed, ratified claimed retaliatory discharge.3 again sought relief for, among things, Whistleblower's counts 8 reversed both actions. Finazzo, (1992); (1993). That concluded (i) Haw., 251, P.2d, 642, interpreted 250 (1989), "disputes rights." 642. determining thus cause, construing pointed 410 (1988), 29 185, retaliation filing worker's compensation depended upon motive. Because same true case, said pre-empted. 9 granted certiorari consolidated --- ----, 114 908, 127 97 (1994). II A. 10 Whether establishing congressional intent. Allis-Chalmers Lueck, 471 202, 208, 1904, 1909, 85 206 (1985). Pre-emption standards "within traditional police power State" "should lightly inferred." Fort Halifax Packing Coyne, 482 1, 21, 2211, 2222, 96 (1987); Hillsborough County Automated Medical Laboratories, 707, 715, 2371, 2376, 714 (1985) (a statute will read supersede State's historic powers "the clear manifest purpose Congress"). 11 Congress' passing promote stability labor-management relations providing comprehensive disputes. 562, 1414, 563 151a. To realize goal, establishes prompt orderly settlement" classes first class, "rates rules ibid., deemed "major" Major relate " 'the formation collective bargaining efforts secure them.' (1989) ("Conrail "), quoting 723, 1290, 1886 (1945). class known "gro[w] covering conditions." Minor "involve controversies over meaning existing particular fact situation." Trainmen Chicago R. I.R. Co., 353 30, 33, 77 635, 637, 622 (1957). Thus, "major create contractual rights, enforce them." Conrail, citing 1289. 12 Petitioners contend conflict firing dispute. so, must resolved mechanisms, including carrier's internal dispute-resolution processes adjustment board established employer unions. 184; 1414; 2480. complaints constitute dispute would B 13 Court's inquiry into begins, course, text statute. point defines include growing [CBAs]." argue disjunctive indicate "grievances" means something than labor-contract else term superfluous. Accordingly, petitioners suggest mean employment-related based statutory common law. Even we persuaded word "or" carried weight, cf., Olano, ---- - 113 1770, 123 508 (reading "error defect" category "error"), Young, 470 n. 12, 1038, 1046, 84 (1985); McNally States, 483 350, 358-359, 2875, 2880-2881, 292 (1987) phrase added simply "unmistakable"), produces overlap unlike purports avoid. Their expansive definition necessarily encompasses application" CBAs. attempting save superfluity, mere surplusage. think more likely "grievances," like CBAs, refers disagreements how give effect bargained-for use "grievance" refer arising labor-law context general, see, Paperworkers Int'l Union Misco, 484 29, 36, 364, 370, 98 286 (1987), understood way context. H.R.Rep. 1944, 73d Cong., 2d Sess., 2-3 (1934) (referring settlement "minor 'grievances,' develop and/or contracts unions carriers"). Significantly, boards charged administration minor-dispute provisions pertaining invoking contract-based NRAB Fourth Div.Award 4548 (function National Adjustment Board decide accordance controlling CBA); Third Div. Award 24348 (1983) (issues related outside Board's authority); 19790 (1973) ("this lacks jurisdiction created Statutes limited interpretations Agreement"); Northwest Airlines/Airline Pilots System Bd. Adjustment, Decision 1972, p. ("both role arbitrator admonitions courts refrain construe [RLA]"); 48 LA 727, 733 (BNA) (1967) ("The extend applying Civil Rights Act"). 15 believe most natural reading synonym Webster's New Dictionary 1585 (1986) (the used synonymous, equivalent, substitutive character words phrases"). Nothing legislative history RLA4 sections statute5 undermines conclusion. But even accepting 151a susceptible interpretation, no proposed demonstrates regime broadly substantive protections C 16 Our confirms agreements. Exec. 2482, distinguishing feature [a dispute] conclusively [CBA]"); Pittsburgh Lake Erie Executives 490, 501, 2584, 2592, 415 ("Minor contracts"); Brotherhood R.R. Trainmen, 637 (minor "controversies agreement"); Slocum Delaware, L. W.R. 339 239, 243, 70 577, 579, 795 (1950) (RLA meant provide "adjustment railroad-employee agreements"). 17 Moreover, More 60 years ago, railroad's arbitration scheme regulating number workers operate equipment. Missouri Pacific Norwood, 283 249, 258, 51 458, 462, 75 1010 (1931) ("No analysis discussion 1926 show Arkansas statutes consideration"). Not long thereafter, Illinois Commerce Commission requiring cabooses trains; operative some trains. Terminal Railroad Assn. St. Louis 318 63 420, 87 571 (1943). Although assumed railroad dispute, id., 6, 423, enforceable nonetheless: 18 "State laws regulated great variety conditions transportation sanitary facilities conditions, devices protections, purity water supply, fire protection, innumerable others. Any matters might, suppose, subject demand work[ers] better protection interstate commerce agencies might deal phase it. . cannot minimum requirements laid down authority set aside. enactment Congress [RLA] preemption field themselves. ." Id., 6-7, 423. 19 provided law, whatever govern, RLA. 20 Norwood involved workplace laws, taken consistent approach Andrews Louisville N.R. 406 320, 92 1562, 32 95 (1972), pre-empted, discipline, firmly rooted itself. asserted right agreement: 21 "Here conceded source [Andrews'] discharged, therefore treat "wrongful" entitled damages, [CBA]. [T]he disagreement turns extent [the railroad's] obligation restore [Andrews] regular following injury automobile accident. depend claim, [railroad's] disallowance stem differing requirement submitted adjustment." 324, 1565 (emphasis added). 22 Here, contrast, "only source" wrongfully. fact, asserts Wholly apart whistleblowing. parties' arbitrate relieve duty. 23 disputes" involve damages injuries Employers' Liability (FELA), seq., worker injured coworker's negligence. that, resulted sole arbitration. unanimously argument, emphasizing derived FELA CBA: 24 "The otherwise compensable caused opportunity bring damages. negligent affords suited their needs, seems Board. It inconceivable intended suffered disabling denied recovery able process narrow successful conclusion." 564-565, 1415. 25 likened Buell "notwithstanding strong policies encouraging arbitration, 'different considerations apply where designed individual workers,' 565, 1415, Barrentine Arkansas-Best Freight System, 450 728, 737, 101 1437, 1443, 67 641 (1981), distinguished Andrews, "based squarely" 566, 1416.6 D 26 emerges line leading employs LMRA, 185.7 (1985), applied bad-faith handling owed employee, duty good faith, Its finding derives contract, [so that] attempt assess liability here inevitably interpretation." 218, 1914. 27 cautioned, however, existed similarly pre-empted: 28 "Of every employment, tangentially preempted Nor there suggestion Congress, adopting 301, wished private force ousting inconsistent regulation. Clearly, grant parties ability what illegal extending preemptive beyond intent section preempt proscribe conduct, establish obligations, contract." 211-212, 1911-1912.8 remarkably similar before us now, made covered fired false claim. After pursuant her protected employees except "proper" "just" she alleging exercising facts" proceeding reversed. 30 recognized resolution depends 405-406, 1881, supra; Teamsters Lucas Flour 369 95, 82 571, 593 (1962). observed, "purely questions" "requir[e] interpret agreement." 407, 1882. turned sort question: threatened and, motive discharging deter interfere exercise 31 While recognizing well attention cause," 408, 1883, disagreed "such parallelism render[ed] analysis. For while instances basis matter question, merely ensures agreements, says nothing when adjudication words, hand, other, precisely facts, can itself, 'independent' purposes." 408-410, 1883. 33 ruling LMRA fully "substantive [CBA]," Railroad, 7, basic "protections authority," conclusion 1565, "depend[s] interpretation" description "conclusively resolved" reference expressly 411-412, 1884-1885, earlier drawn analogies principles, Central 372 682, 692, 83 956, 962, (1963). statutes, conclude adopt pre-emption.9 E 34 reaching conclusion, reject contract-dependent our prior (1945), (1989). Burley case. Rather, concerned union officials settle workers' violations urged representative, negotiate major enjoyed course rejecting described "omitted case," is, "founded incident relationship, one, account personal injury." 1290. 35 sweeping, limited. agreed "incident relationship," case." These references, therefore, dicta. case" dictum logically norm omitted explicit language, rather legislature court.10 Finally, Burley's specific example found jurisdiction. Nonetheless, avoid confusion, disavow suggesting encompass 36 challenge drug testing Conrail's conducting physical examinations implied 2479. drug-testing constituted add new making "protracted process" mediation, 303, reflected producing less onerous minor, stating "[t]he [CBA]." Garrison, Board: A Unique Administrative Agency, 46 Yale L.J. 567, 568, 576 (1937). Obviously, say another saying 37 pin hopes observation "[w]here contested action, ensuing arguably justified 307, 2483 They "arguably justified" permitting "just cause." standard, policing Recognizing party's characterization ran risk undercutting prohibition "against unilateral imposition terms," 306, sincere, nonfrivolous test threshold place. III 38 Returning us, respondent, discharged. teaches decided question." 39 contention any, do. regard allegation count dismissal. claims, employer. 40 agree affirm court's judgment. 41 so ordered. syllabus constitutes part prepared Reporter Decisions convenience reader. Detroit Lumber 200 321, 337, 282, 287, 50 499. response, initiated investigation, civil penalty $964,000 HAL, revocation ultimately settled charges substantial fine. forbids "discharge, threaten, discriminate [t]he reports body suspected rule State, political subdivision unless knows false." 378-62(1). file injunctive actual 378-63(a). managerial here, E. Honma. During debates surrounding 1926, floor statements isolation, broader counterbalanced legislators equated interpretation. Compare Cong.Rec. 4517, 8807 (1926), 4510, 8808. inconclusive debate hardly calls fashioning broad pre-emption. 1934 amended accompanying House Report stated bill "to sufficient effective carriers, fixing wages (1934). cite statute's general "settl[ing] [collective bargaining] otherwise." 152 First. provision, phrased (i), clearly try issues relationship specifically addressed compel touching thereby precedents squarely pervasive possible preclusion statute, entirely distinction rob 412, 1885, (1988) (Buell principles applicable statute). Principles federalism caution 2222 (pre-emption inferred [labor] area, since establishment falls within State"). Section 301(a) federal-court "authorizes fashion enforcement agreements." Textile Workers Lincoln Mills, 448, 451, 912, 915, 972 applies Livadas Aubry, 2068, 2078, receive payment pegged wages, determined governing states "when bare consulted litigation plainly extinguished." 413, (1988). addition, reaffirms "§ non-negotiable conferred law." 2078. true, observe, history, purpose. mandate nor prescribe types purposes parallel development 691-692, 961-962, (1963); 210, 1910, desirability having uniform cf. Jacksonville 394 369, 383-384, 1109, 1118, 344 (1969), well. Lower courts, appropriateness Anderson American F.3d 590, 595 (CA5 1993) (applying analyze pre-emption); Davies 971 F.2d 463, 466-467 (CA10 1992) (same), cert. denied, 2439, 124 657 (1993); O'Brien (CA1 980, 122 134 Maher Jersey Transit Operations, 125 N.J. 455, 472-473, A.2d 750, 758 (1991) (same). Hubbard 927 1094, 1097 (CA9 1991) (Lingle govern cases); Lorenz CSX Transp., 980 263, 268 (CA4 Toledo Shore Line Transportation Union, 396 142, 154-155, 90 294, 301-302, (1969) ("Where condition tolerable sides, often suggested practice frequent industry others") added); 311-312, 2485 (recognizing CBAs "practice, usage custom"); Steelworkers Warrior Gulf Navigation 363 574, 578-579, 80 1347, 1351, 1409 (1960) "more contract; generalized code myriad draft[ers] wholly anticipate").

Category: 9