Document: 486 U.S. 399 108 S.Ct. 1877 100 L.Ed.2d 410 Jonna R. LINGLE, Petitionerv.NORGE DIVISION OF MAGIC CHEF, INC. No. 87-259. Argued March 23, 1988. Decided June 6, Syllabus After petitioner notified her employer (respondent) that she had been injured in the course of employment and requested compensation for medical expenses pursuant to Illinois Workers' Compensation Act, was discharged filing an allegedly false worker's claim. The union representing filed a grievance collective-bargaining agreement protected employees from discharge except "just" cause provided arbitration disputes between any employee concerning effect or interpretation agreement. While proceeding, retaliatory action state court, alleging exercising rights under laws. Respondent removed suit Federal District Court on basis diversity citizenship, motion dismiss case as pre-empted by § 301 Labor Management Relations 1947. court dismissed complaint pre-empted, concluding retaliatory-discharge claim "inextricably intertwined" with provision prohibiting without just cause, allowing state-law proceed would undermine procedures contract. Appeals affirmed. Held: Application petitioner's tort remedy not 301. An application law is only if such requires Pp. 403-413. (a) If resolution depends upon meaning agreement, (which might lead inconsistent results since there could be many principles are States) federal labor principles—necessarily uniform throughout Nation—must employed resolve dispute. Teamsters v. Lucas Flour Co., 369 95, 82 571, 7 593; Allis-Chalmers Corp. Lueck, 471 202, 105 1904, 85 206. 403-406. (b) Under governing claim, must show both he threatened employer's motive deter Act interfere exercise those rights. Neither elements interpret term Similarly, factual inquiry whether nonretaliatory reason does turn Although analysis involve attention same considerations contractual determination fired parallelism render dependent analysis. As long can resolved interpreting itself, "independent" pre-emption purposes. 406-410. (c) result this consistent policy fostering uniform, certain adjudication over agreements, cases have permitted separate fonts substantive remain unpre-empted other statutes. Interpretation agreements remains firmly arbitral realm; judges determine questions involving labor-management relations do require construing agreements. There nothing novel about recognizing context exist 410-413. 823 F.2d 1031 (CA7 1987), reversed. STEVENS, J., delivered opinion unanimous Court. Paul Alan Levy, Washington, D.C., petitioner. Charles C. Jackson, Chicago, Ill., respondent. Justice STEVENS 1 In who may recover compensatory punitive damages employer. question presented covered provides enforce discharge. held 1947, 61 Stat. 156, 29 U.S.C. 185. 1987) (en banc). We disagree. 2 * Petitioner respondent's manufacturing plant Herrin, Illinois. On December 5, 1984, respondent Act. 11, "false claim." Id., at 1033. 3 promptly all production maintenance Herrin plant. employees, including petitioner, "proper" App. 13-14, established procedure grievances, id., 10-11. broadly defined encompass "any dispute . Employer employee, effect, interpretation, application, breach violation Agreement." 10. Ultimately, arbitrator ruled favor ordered reinstate full backpay. See 25-26. 4 Meanwhile, July 9, 1985, commenced against Circuit Williamson County, workers' 2-4; see Kelsay Motorola, Inc., 74 Ill.2d 172, 23 Ill.Dec. 559, 384 N.E.2d 353 (1978); Midgett Sackett-Chicago, 143, 475, 473 1280 (1984); also Ill.Rev.Stat., ch. 48, ¶ 138.4(h) (1987). then praying either grounds stay further proceedings pending completion arbitration. Record, Doc. 7. Relying our decision 206 (1985), complaint. It concluded "claim 'inextricably intertwined' collective bargaining wrongful cause" set forth parties' 618 F.Supp. 1448, 1449 (SD Ill.1985). 5 agreed en banc opinion, dissent two judges, it rejected argument because disposition depend agreement; contrary, "the facts" implicated procedures. F.2d, 1046. took note of, declined follow, contrary decisions Tenth, Third, Second Circuits.1 granted certiorari conflict Circuits. 484 895, 226, 98 185 II 6 Section 301(a) 185(a), provides: "Suits contracts organization industry affecting commerce organizations, brought district United States having jurisdiction parties, respect amount controversy regard citizenship parties." 8 Textile Workers Lincoln Mills, 448, 77 912, 972 (1957), we federal-court controversies but "authorizes courts fashion body enforcement these agreements." 451, S.Ct., 915.2 9 593 (1962), were confronted straightforward contract interpretation: implicitly prohibited strike called union. Washington Supreme answered applying rules interpretation. approach, mandated resort order ensure thus promote peaceable, disputes.3 10 considered Wisconsin bad-faith handling insurance applied disability benefits authorized began examining determined benefits, right payments made timely manner. 213-216, 1912-1914. analyzed remedy, explaining "exists 'duty devolv[ed] insurer reasonable implication express terms contract,' scope which, crucially, 'ascertained consideration itself.' " 216, 1914 (quoting Hilker Western Automobile Ins. 204 Wis. 1, 16, 235 N.W. 413, 415 (1931)). Since "parties' manner which benefit handled [would] necessarily [have been] relevant allegation dilatory manner," U.S., 218, 1915, setting. 11 Thus, Lueck faithfully principle preemption developed Flour:4 labor-law dispute.5 III 12 recognized (1978),6 applicable contracts, (1984), cert. denied, 474 909, 106 278, 88 243 (1985). "[T]o discharge, plaintiff sufficient facts inferred (1) (2) discharging threatening him his rights." Horton Miller Chemical 776 1351, 1356 1985) (summarizing state-court decisions), 475 1122, 1641, 90 186 (1986); Gonzalez Prestress Engineering Corp., 115 104 751, 503 308 (1986). Each purely pertains conduct motivation To defend cf. Loyola University Chicago Human Rights Comm'n, 149 Ill.App.3d 8, 102 746, 500 639 likewise sense matters purposes: agreement.7 13 seems relied different way wrote well prohibit discharge," went say go forward, "a deciding precisely issue arbitrator: 'just cause' worker." 1046 (emphasis added). concluded, inextricably intertwined here, implicates provisions Ibid. agree court's explanation Lingle cause. But disagree conclusion renders For while instances National pre-empts subject matter question,8 merely ensures will says State provide workers when agreements.9 words, even one hand, law, other, addressing facts, purposes.10 IV 14 reach today 15 First, explained "[t]he need preserve effectiveness central reasons underlay Court's holding Flour." 219, 1915. "A rule individual sidestep available lose most its effectiveness, eviscerate tenet arbitrator, has responsibility first instance." 220, Paperworkers Misco, 29, 364, 286 (1987); Steelworkers Enterprise Wheel & Car 363 593, 80 1358, 1424 (1960). Today's should make clear realm;11 16 Second, 17 "This has, numerous occasions, hold are, availability arbitration, barred bringing claims See, e.g., McDonald West Branch, 466 284 [104 1799, 302] Barrentine Arkansas-Best Freight System, 450 728 [101 1437, 67 641] (1981); Alexander Gardner-Denver 36 [94 1011, 39 147] (1974). each statute quite distinct, theory running through notwithstanding strong policies encouraging 'different apply where employee's based arising out designed minimum guarantees workers.' Barrentine, supra, [450 U.S.,] 737 1443]." Atchison, T. S. F. Co. Buell, 480 557, 564-565, 107 1410, 1415, 94 563 (1987) 18 comments Railway pre-emption, referred independent statutory rights, subsequently providing one-time severance event closing. Fort Halifax Packing Coyne, 482 21, 2211, 2222, 96 (1987), emphasized "pre-emption lightly area, establishment standards falls within traditional police power State." specifically Maine NLRA, "since standard impermissibly intrude process." 2223. 19 "recognize[d] pre-empt anti-discrimination laws, though like existed justify discharge." 1046, n. 17. distinguished laws Congress affirmatively endorsed antidiscrimination remedies Title VII Civil 1964, 78 241, 42 §§ 2000e-5(c) 2000e-7, whereas no explicit endorsement plain discussion Part III, distinction unnecessary determining question. operation does, however, illustrate point mere fact broad protection discriminatory—or coincidentally violates existence contours private conclude particular discriminatory proper law. typical tribunal "just language V 20 sum, 1947 agreement.12 21 judgment 22 so ordered. Peabody Galion Dollar, 666 1309 (CA10 1981); Herring Prince Macaroni New Jersey, 799 120, 124, (CA3 1986); Baldracchi Pratt Whitney Aircraft Div., Technologies 814 (CA2 1987); Johnson Hussmann 805 795 (CA8 1986) (retaliatory 301). later concurrent claims. Dowd Box Courtney, 368 502, 519, 483 (1962). 102, 576, Our pre-emptive bears repeating: "It apparently that, although Union fashion, national nonetheless, free individualized local This view cannot accepted. dimensions paramount area statute. Comprehensiveness inherent process formulated mandate requiring issues raised suits kind decided according precepts policy. "More important, 'is peculiarly calls law.' possibility meanings inevitably exert disruptive influence negotiation administration Because neither party obtained conceded, negotiating immeasurably more difficult necessity trying formulate contain systems someday invoked enforcing Once bargain made, conflicting competing legal tend stimulate prolong Indeed, possibly concepts substantially impede willingness final judicial disputes. "The importance affected makes single particularly compelling. ordering adjusting interests voluntary keystone scheme industrial peace. frustrates effort smooth functioning strikes very core With due factors bear enacting intended doctrines uniformly prevail rules." 103-104, 576-577 (citations omitted; footnote omitted). last Term conceded 'nature duty care owed [her] reference agreement.' Electrical Hechler, 481 851, 863, 2161, 2169, 95 791 (citation Plaintiff Florida "breached member safe workplace." 853, 2163. revealed threshold exists examination ascertain what duties accepted parties duties." 860, 2167. Thus agreeing characterization embodied plaintiff's concession, Republic Steel Maddox, 379 650, 614, 580 (1965) (state-law pay twice properly court. Avco Machinists, 390 1235, 126 (1968), enjoin despite failure plead action, force powerful displace entirely 'for organization.' Franchise Tax Bd. California Construction Laborers Vacation Trust Southern California, 463 103 2841, 2853, 420 (1983) Conversely, Caterpillar Inc. Williams, 386, 2425, 318 10, infra, "completely pre-empted" 301, 394, 2430, "says content validity contracts." Ibid., 2431 Both examples principle: former case, required question; latter plaintiffs' did specific provision, following section expresses public underlying common-law development: shall unlawful employer, company service adjustment with, restrain coerce whatsoever discriminate, attempt threaten discriminate individually company, refuse rehire recall active suitable capacity Act." Such independence present Flour, 4, supra. cases, pertinent Not here. points nonnegotiable applies unionized nonunionized alike. true grant shared workers, condition nonpre-emption. conceivable create nonnegotiable, nonetheless turned application. required, least instances, pre-empted. cover needed thereunder. insofar important remember San Diego Building Trades Council Garmon, 359 236, 244, 79 773, 779, 775 (1959), "[w]hen fairly assumed activities purports regulate [NLRA], constitute unfair practice enactment yield." added "courts primary tribunals adjudicate issues" "whether activity regulated [is] governed [is], perhaps, outside sections." Rather, "[i]t essential [NLRA] determinations left instance Board." 244-245, 779. second doctrine protects interference structure pre-empting causes unregulated." Metropolitan Life Massachusetts, 724, 749, 2380, 2394, "was designed, initially, govern arose arguably 8(a)(1) nor 8(b) Garmon pre-emption." "Machinists pre-emption," after Machinists Employment 427 132, 2548, 49 396 (1976), "ruled penalize concerted refusal work overtime NLRA." 750, 2395. Whether waive members' individual, nonpre-empted is, likewise, distinct another today. prohibition they alter scheme. Byrd Aetna Casualty Surety 152 292, 298, 347, 352, 504 221, app. 539, 110 454, 511 426 Before bar waiver "clear unmistakable" evidence, Edison NLRB, 460 693, 708, 1467, 1477, 75 387 (1983), intended. No evidence case. said 394-395, 2430-2431 original), here: "Caterpillar asserts respondents' reality completely claims, therefore arise governs founded directly created 'substantially 859, [107 2166-2167, 3, 791] 220 [105 1916]. Respondents allege entered into breached them. contracts. respondents, unit members time closing, possessed substantial masters complaint, chose so. "Moreover, Caterpillar's assertion, rely indirectly, address relationship stated, 'it congressional intent [§ 301] proscribe conduct, establish obligations, contract.' 212 1911-1912]." Arbitrators delegated nearly adjudicators 36, 370, Bureau Affairs, Basic Patterns Contracts 37 (11th ed. ("Arbitration 99 percent sample contracts"). A may, course, information rate economic helpful worker prevailing entitled. 106. damages, otherwise stand. general proposition, thereby 211, 1911, "not every tangentially ."

Category: 9