Document: 460 U.S. 669 103 S.Ct. 1453 75 L.Ed.2d 368 LOCAL 926, INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS, AFL-CIO, et al., Appellantsv.Robert C. JONES. No. 81-1574. Argued Dec. 1, 1982. Decided April 4, 1983. Syllabus Respondent filed a charge with Regional Director of the National Labor Relations Board (Board), alleging that petitioner Union (Union) had procured his discharge by company from position as "supervisor" because he was not member in good standing Union. Supervisors are expressly excluded definition "employee" under Act. The Union's conduct allegedly violated § 8(b)(1)(A) Act, which proscribes unions coercing employees exercise their rights 7 to engage concerted action, and 8(b)(1)(B), prohibits employers selection representatives for purposes collective bargaining or adjustment grievances. refused issue complaint, concluding there insufficient evidence establish caused respondent's coerced its representative. Instead appealing Board's General Counsel, respondent suit against others Georgia state court, interfered employment contract into breaching contract. trial court dismissed common-law tort action pre-empted subject matter complaint arguably within exclusive jurisdiction, but Court Appeals reversed dismissal case Held: Respondent's state-court is Pp. 675-684. (a) If State seeks regulate make basis liability actually prohibited protected otherwise applicable law procedures ordinarily pre-empted. However, when at only peripheral concern Act touches on interests so deeply rooted local feeling responsibility that, absence compelling congressional direction, it cannot be inferred Congress intended deprive power act, regulation sanction 675-676. (b) Here, 8(b)(1)(A), unusual workers construction industry, such respondent, fluctuate between supervisory nonsupervisory positions and, view low-level held, unlikely would time serve might intimidated once again became statutory employee. also since least arguable Act's meaning, having indicated have collective-bargaining responsibilities. It Board, courts, decide whether kind supervisor who could invoke 8(b)(1)(B). Cf. Iron Workers v. Perko, 373 701, 83 1429, 10 646. 678-680. (c) Pre-emption avoided theory concluded lacked jurisdiction adjudicate status, instead addressed merits complaint. Nor did Director's rejection satisfy all federal-law involved, clear way cause action. pre-emption doctrine mandates substantive federal areas applies, protects over matters reach. can asserted grounds 8(b)(1)(B) unfair labor practice were sufficiently alike, Sears Roebuck & Co. Carpenters, 436 180, 98 1745, 56 209, distinguished; should permitted proceed awarded punitive damages attorney's fees there, whereas limited backpay if gone forward before Board. 680-684. Appeal certiorari granted; 159 Ga.App. 693, 285 S.E.2d 30, reversed. Laurence Gold, Washington, D.C., appellants. Elinor Hadley Stillman, N.L.R.B. amicus curiae special leave Court. Robert F. Gore, Springfield, Va., appellee. WHITE, Justice. This presents question brought one "supervisor"1 meaning 2(11), 29 U.S.C. 152(11), interference union contractual relationships employer preempted (the NLRA Act). * Respondent2 Jones offered Power Company (Company). reported work June 12, 1978. By agreement, took vacation after second day job 20, On this latter date discharged. believed been persuaded him agent, Local 926 International Operating Engineers (Union). reason hostility, believed, decision years ago non-union employer. 28, 1978, (Board) Union, "procured" discharge, "and thereby [the Company] supervisors representative, [Jones] said organization." Allegedly, (B) Act.3 Appendix Jurisdictional Statement 25a. In letter dated July 19, further proceedings unwarranted complaint.4 He explained Jones' discharge; lack indicating restrained representative bargaining. come conclusion part changes Company's structure merely participated discussions regarding changes. Counsel,5 proceeded suing both Company. Count 1 claimed allegations simple. pled 1969 1974, resigned More recently, Equipment Supervisor plants, entered reliance terminated prior employment. crucial allegation Thomas D. Archer, business agent "maliciously full intent, Company, coerced, plaintiff." prayed judgment $80,000 petitioners, composed $25,000 lost wages, $50,000 damages, $5,000 fees, interest, costs. 2 sought relief alleged breached observed no justification allowing joint federal-state control conduct, interest protecting citizens insignificant risk substantial. Appeals, Union.6 Following precedent considered controlling, Sheet Metal Association Carter, 133 872, 212 645 (1975), Brotherhood Electrical Briscoe, 143 417, 239 38 (1977), held deep abiding citizens' sounded tort, unrelated concerns laws interfere administration those laws. As an additional finding preemption, stated acts even ambit 8 NLRA, thus purporting distinguish 646 (1963). Supreme denied review, appealed. We postponed consideration our appellate jurisdiction. Petitioners now acknowledge mandatory appeal.7 agree, but, treating papers petition writ certiorari, we grant petition. Concluding erred, reverse. II us "is variant familiar theme." San Diego Unions Garmon, 359 236, 239, 79 773, 776, 3 775 (1959). has often asked determine particular causes regulations may coexist comprehensive amalgam regulatory arrangements set up govern labor-management relations affecting interstate commerce. E.g., Sears, 209 (1978); Farmer 430 290, 97 1056, 51 338 (1977); Linn Plant Guard Workers, 383 53, 86 657, 15 582 (1966); supra. Our approach preemption restated. First, NLRA. supra, U.S., 245, S.Ct., 779; see 187-90, 1752-54. Although "Garmon guidelines [are applied] literal, mechanical fashion", 188, 1752, preempted. Farmer, 296, 1061. When, however, refuse invalidate conduct. 243-244, 778. allowed deeply-rooted nature involves sensitive balancing any harm scheme established Congress, either terms negating conflicting rules, importance protection citizens. See 188-89, 1752; 297, 1061.8 Not theme, heard same tune before. (1963), prempted Worker's employed times superintendent other foreman. While acting superintendent, rule, membership suspended consequence. then told Perko's transgression members longer take orders him. Some weeks thereafter discharged account dispute founded several reasons 8. Perko Even conceding beyond reach foreman's non-supervisory covered Hence, proscription interfering 8(b)(2) causing discriminate employee contrary 8(a)(3). Second, coerce employees, fear meeting supervisor's fate, foregoing Third, restraining "an grievances." concluded, well sufficient grievance-handling responsibilities realm whose seek dictate. Since Jones, unlike employee, does rely first given challenged proscriptions urged two holding fully here. adds threatens punish worker's protesting, non-coercively, people they entail For these reasons, submits agree. III thought reasonably construe prohibit failure observe rules inevitably tend submit regimentation hence them rights. event, order reimburse wages. subsequent holdings apply where fluctuate, did, 706, 1431 positions. 725, Plumbers, 225 NLRB 138 (1976), enforced, 572 F.2d 550 (CA5 1978), breach promise hire charging party supervisor. liable backpay. found certain depending referrals learned reasoned "because industry frequently cycle out jobs, discrimination [an individual] attempt become carry intimidate employee." F.2d, 552. "fluctuating status" case. position.9 here forbids choice some doubt Act; respect. Of course, every "representative purpose grievances" Florida Light 417 790, 811 n. 21, 94 2737, 2748 41 477 (1974). But case, occupy equipment superintendent; enough authorized expected deal grievances arising American Broadcasting Writers Guild, 437 411, 427 25, 2423, 1757 57 313 (1978);10 case; agree responsible IV none sound view, preempt submitted courts. interpreted status. That plainly statement decline generally 245-46, 779-80. violation satisfied cleared grounded notion do circumstances, cases Perko. If, seems more likely, argument complainant adequately untenable. exhaust administrative remedies, appeal Counsel. Beyond Garmon ordinary primary requirements, not, taken adequate vest agency nationwide controversies purview. Matters normally it, decide. implements desire achieve uniform effective enforcement national policy. addition relying reasoning argues alike. relies Co., "the critical inquiry" deciding claim "whether controversy presented identical . different been, Board." 197, 1757. asserts made proving coercion whereas, explains, need shown caused, coercively noncoercively, employer's Because forbid non-coerced, Union-caused discharges, distinct supra.11 reject argument. concedes extent covers coercive influence employer; note "intimidated coerced" Jones. prove contract, very concededly permitting non-coercive go courts continually require instance coercive, sanction, non-coercive, proper suit. Decisions questions resolved reaches relationships, fundamental element must proved case: result influence. elements state-law claims respect, fault. Sears. There trespass. location picketing. charge, focused picketing recognitional reassignment objectives, issues "completely simple trespass occurred." 198, 1758. Permitting accordingly created "no realistic enforce prohibition practices." Id. discharge. causation Jones's just recurringly core cases. Despite determination, undoubted issued, relitigate obvious efforts recover decisions companion Plumbers Borden, 690, 1423, 638 refute submission. They foreclose Georgia's enforcing overrides prosecution entail. proposition, pressed union, although right exert noncoercive "[C]ourts protest than strikes low level personnel protected. Henning Cheadle, Inc. NLRB, [522 1050, 1055 (7th Cir.1975) ]; Art Clay [328 88, 90-91 Cir.1964) Dobbs Houses, [325 531, 538-39 (5th Cir.1963) ]. hand, writing letters expressing opposition, Phoenix Mutual Life Insurance 167 983 Cir.) cert. denied, 335 845 [69 68, 93 L.Ed. 395], (1948), voicing complaints, Guernsey-Muskingum Elec. Coop., Inc., (6th Cir.1960). examining means advancing balanced finely competing involved. general per se rules." Abilities Goodwill, N.L.R.B., 612 6, 9 (CA1 1979). Thus, rejected ground activity. Finally, squarely 246-247, 780, below Reversed. Justice REHNQUIST, whom POWELL O'CONNOR join, dissenting. I disagree Court's preempts balance think reached wrong, though close one; importantly, accept analysis recent (1978). Union) intent ., addition, alleged, amendment Pet.App., 18a-19a, 2a, Company) jointly conspired relations. apparently acknowledges, ante, 682, fairly read stating law—a firing noncoercively discharge.1 doctrines rested reversed, ordering reinstatement recognizes predicated "arguably prohibited" standard (1978): from" claim. Id., (emphasis added).2 Other passages opinion elaborate upon requiring, example, court." 1758; id., 196-197, 4 offers basic arguments why identical.3 doing so, interprets "identical controversies" new unjustified manner. "permitting Ante, 682. 5 rests misunderstanding decisions. unpreempted unless added). Plainly, envisioned "identical" standard. Likewise, —relied Sears' formulation standard, 1757—indicated may, fact must, sort non-preempted portions taken. 304-305, 1065. models analogous situation Just abusive manner itself, modeled 305, 1066, pure aspects objectives cases, like one. hold, competent judgments without short, while correct charged policy, equally conferred respect preemption.4 6 relied "a [non-coercive relations] [T]his [T]he ." amounts substantial reformulation requirement based face dubious: items concepts share common element, or, words, respect," 682 Moreover, supports identical. illustrated reference example "non-identical" controversies, Garner Teamsters, 346 485, 74 161, 228 (1953), representing "identical." Given reference, worth somewhat greater detail. Richard Hill belonged operated hiring hall. subjected hall campaign personal harassment. claiming, first, discriminated him, second, intentionally engaged emotional distress. "these tortious form charges Board," 302, 1064, Hill's intertwined "federally discrimination," creating potential regulation." 304, inevitable overlap intentional infliction distress claims—despite sharing related factual bases —would "focus[es]." Resolution turn abusiveness defendant's turned "Union officials [Hill]," ibid. required "something more" claim, identical.5 —claims important element—is inconsistent Farmer. involved common, questions—whether occurred; where; property owner consented not. These determinations, resolve differently, claims. following model, credibility determinations occurred, supporting mere differing preemption. Accordingly, misplaced. Instead, demand searching inquiry relationship controversies. 11 recognizing free doubt, conclude identical, therefore, evident safeguard right, secured join refrain joining actions, Boeing 412 67, 71, 1952, 1955, 36 752 (1973). most discussion ability assert states that: 12 unlawful interferes Section give testimony adverse employers' commit practices. participation activity—either themselves allied rank-and-file employees—is supervisors, Parker-Robb Chevrolet, 262 58 (1982). 13 supervisor, show with, this, various guaranteed persons—actual employees—were with. "entail[s] relatively complex legal determinations,"—such what are, how directed forth—"completely question" lose job, issues, reveal basically focuses 8(b)(1)(A).6 14 representatives. provision "reflect[s] clearly explicitly activities." 803, 2743, (1974) "Congress exclusively concerned attempts dictate represent grievance adjustment." Ibid. contrast, relations, plaintiff act entirely irrelevant. "exclusively concerned"—is harmed employee's irrelevant will focus far simpler neater facts Board.7 differences decide, am preempted.8 A defined as: "(1) term 'supervisor' individual authority, employer, hire, transfer, suspend, lay off, recall, promote, assign, reward, discipline responsibly direct them, adjust grievances, effectively recommend connection authority routine clerical nature, requires use independent judgment." 2(3), 152(3). Only "employees" 7, 157, provides relevant part: "Employees shall self-organization, form, assist organizations, bargain collectively through own choosing, activities mutual aid protection, except affected agreement requiring organization condition section [8(a)(3) ] title." refer because, explain, infra, review rather appeal. Sections 8(a) 8(b) define practices pertinent 8(b), 158(b) provides: "It agents— (1) restrain (A) [7] title grievances; (2) subsection (a)(3) 8(a)(3), 158(a)(3) makes employer— "(3) regard tenure encourage discourage organization: text letter: 1978 2954 Orchard Lane, S.E. Atlanta, 30354 Re: Engineers, Case 10-CB-2905 Dear Mr. Jones: above-captioned amended, carefully investigated considered. investigation, appear warranted. Region your Employer Rather, appears implemented included removal project. participate changes, status am, refusing matter. Form NLRB-4938, Procedure Filing Appeal, attached. period expires August Very truly yours, s/s Curtis L. Mack 26a. Counsel provided CFR 102.19 "didn't much point" taking Jt.App., 105 (Deposition Jones—February affirmed us. initially argued Statements entitled fell 28 1257(2), allows parties statute being repugnant United States upholds validity statute. Right Work law, Ga.Code Ann. 54-905 (1981), recodified 34-6-24 (1982) identified wrongly upheld. consider state's law; Petitioners' current perception correct. "statute" 1257(2) relating neither prohibited, determined unregulated left play economic forces. Machinists Wisconsin Employment Comm'n, 132, 140, 96 2548, 2553, 49 396 (1976); Teamsters 20 Morton, 377 252, 260, 84 1253, 1258, 280 (1964). branch adhere proposition voiced abide alone exercising asserts, reflecting peculiarities survives later decision. Recognizing draws existing pool violates authority. Second Circuit disagreed Rochester Musicians Assn 66, 514 988, 992 (1975). Third Circuit, position. Newspaper Erie 187 489 416, 420-422 malicious injurious libel course dispute, unprotected remedying injury reputation slight policy law. similar Carpenters insofar discriminatory preempted, outrageous page 1466, infra. complaint: "A ruling 'coerced' preclude contract." 5a-6a. Court, observing dispositive. dictated 708, 1433 ("It do, plain number scores lawsuit 'arguably' comes practices."). type rigid interpretation Building Trades Council (1959), survive supra; (1966). commentator remarked, test described exceptions." Bryson, Matter Wooden Logic: Law Preemption Individual Rights, Texas L.Rev. 1037, 1041 "concedes [his] 'intimidated coerced' preempted." argument, applies portion accompanying text. pp. 688-692, unpersuasive: assumption implicitly §§ (B). find indication brief concession, below, p. believe distinguishable avoid 302-303, noted comparatively origins, nonetheless "has interest" health well-being citizens." long protect "to earn livelihood, redress anyone wrongfully employment." Wiley 134 187, 213 (1975); Southern R. Chambers, 126 Ga. 404, 55 37 (1906). safeguarding integrity paramount economy ours. indistinguishable issue, titled "Pennsylvania Act," types "language almost to" 488, 164 (In governing "more likely involve accommodation [of interests] reserved 27, 1758 27.) suits labelled controversy," 489, 165 added), Pennsylvania "correction grievance." 486, 163, quoting, Pa. A.2d 893 Garner, then, support proof facts; instead, stands principle really policies effectuated different. former employees' "self-organization, activities. 157. latter, unconcerned action; property—one's another. Nottingham Wrigley, 221 386, 388, 144 749 (1965). Insofar concerned, marked. difficult coercion, causation. address question, faced disposition want final judgment.

Category: 9