Opinion ID: 1266339
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Preemption in Labor Cases Generally

Text: The Supreme Court established the basic tenets of federal preemption in the labor context in San Diego Building Trades Council v. Garmon, 359 U.S. 236, 79 S.Ct. 773, 3 L.Ed.2d 775 (1959). In Garmon, the Court considered whether California could provide damages under state law to an employer based on employee picketing, which the California Supreme Court determined was an unfair trade practice. See id. at 238-39, 79 S.Ct. 773. The employer had begun a simultaneous proceeding before the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), over which the Regional Director had declined to exercise jurisdiction presumably because the amount of interstate commerce involved did not meet the Board's monetary standards in taking jurisdiction. Id. at 238, 79 S.Ct. 773. The Court identified the issue as [t]he extent to which the variegated laws of the several States are displaced by a single, uniform, national rule, namely, the National Labor Relations Act. Id. at 241, 79 S.Ct. 773. The Court concluded as follows: When it is clear or may fairly be assumed that the activities which a State purports to regulate are protected by § 7 of the National Labor Relations Act, or constitute an unfair labor practice under § 8, due regard for the federal enactment requires that state jurisdiction must yield. To leave the States free to regulate conduct so plainly within the central aim of federal regulation involves too great a danger of conflict between power asserted by Congress and requirements imposed by state law. Id. at 244, 79 S.Ct. 773. Stated differently, [t]he governing consideration is that to allow the States to control activities that are potentially subject to federal regulation involves too great a danger of conflict with national labor policy. Id. at 246, 79 S.Ct. 773. This principle, the Court explained, applies regardless of whether the state law at issue was tort law of general application [or] specialized labor relations statutes. Id. at 244 n. 3, 79 S.Ct. 773. Finally, the Court explained that, even if application of state law in a particular situation would not, in fact, conflict with the active assertion of federal authority, it would nevertheless involve[ ] a conflict with federal policy in that it involves allowing two law-making sources to govern. Id. at 247, 79 S.Ct. 773. The Garmon rule is subject to two exceptions. First, states retain power to regulate activity that is a merely peripheral concern of the Labor Management Relations Act. Id. at 243, 79 S.Ct. 773. Second, federal labor law does not preempt state law where the regulated conduct touched interests so deeply rooted in local feeling and responsibility that, in the absence of compelling congressional direction, [the Court] could not infer that Congress had deprived the States of the power to act. Id. at 244, 79 S.Ct. 773. As an example of the second exception, the Court pointed to states' continued ability to regulate violence and imminent threats to the public order. Id. at 247, 79 S.Ct. 773.