Opinion ID: 4549623
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Capable of Resolution Without Disruption

Text: Fourth and finally, 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‐ ficiently 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 fits precisely the congressional division of labor.