Document: 482 U.S. 386 107 S.Ct. 2425 96 L.Ed.2d 318 CATERPILLAR INC., et al., Petitionersv.Cecil WILLIAMS al. No. 86-526. Argued April 21, 1987. Decided June 9, Syllabus Caterpillar Tractor Co. (Caterpillar) hired respondents to work at its San Leandro, California, facility in positions covered by collective-bargaining agreement with a union. Respondents eventually assumed management and other outside the bargaining unit, allegedly were repeatedly assured that, if Leandro ever closed, would employ them facilities. Subsequently, they downgraded unionized positions, but that downgrades temporary. However, later notified plant close be laid off. then filed this action, based solely on state law, California court, alleging thereby breached their individual employment contracts. removed action Federal District Court, arguing removal was proper because any contracts made were, as matter of federal substantive labor merged into superseded agreement. denied alleged claim sought remand court. The Court held proper, dismissed case when refused amend complaint attempt under § 301 Labor Management Relations Act, 1947, which confers jurisdiction suits for violations agreements. Appeals reversed, holding improperly removed. Held: Respondents' state-law breach is not removable Court. Pp. 391-399. (a) presence or absence federal-question will support governed "well-pleaded rule," exists only question presented face properly pleaded complaint. Ordinarily, may basis defense, including defense pre-emption, even anticipated complaint, both parties concede truly issue. "complete pre-emption doctrine," corollary well-pleaded rule, once an area law has been completely pre-empted, purportedly pre-empted considered, from inception, claim, therefore arises law. 391-394. (b) contract claims are "completely pre-empted" claims. Section governs founded directly rights created agreements substantially dependent analysis such them, says nothing about content validity Although respondents, unit employees time closing, could have brought suit collective agreement, they, masters chose do so. Moreover, upon interpretation 394-395. (c) J.I. Case v. NLRB, 321 332, 64 576, 88 L.Ed. 762 does Caterpillar's contention returned subsumed into, eliminated by, so 301. That decision stand general proposition all inevitably subsequent fact employer raise court might ultimately prove employee's establish removable. 395-398. (d) There no merit argument pre-empts raises requires interpret apply claiming waived pre-existing rights. question, defensive overcome paramount policies embodied rule. 398-399. 786 F.2d 928 (CA9 1986), affirmed. BRENNAN, J., delivered opinion unanimous Gerald D. Skoning, Chicago, Ill., petitioners. Fritz Wollett, Berkeley, Cal., respondents. Justice BRENNAN 1 whether respondents' 1947 (LMRA), 61 Stat. 156, 29 U.S.C. 185, 2 * At various times between 1956 1968, Company facility. Complaint &Par; 10-26, App. Pet. Cert. (App.) A-40—A-42. Initially, each respondent filled position Local Lodge 284, International Association Machinists (Union). Each became either managerial weekly salaried employee, coverage latter periods ranging 3 15 years; two served 8 years more. A-97—A-98. allege "[d]uring course [their] employment, employees," oral written representations "they look forward indefinite lasting corporation count take care them." 27A, 27D, A-43. More specifically, "while serving managers employees, [they] provide opportunities [them] facilities Caterpillar, subsidiaries, divisions, related companies." Id. ¶ 27F, A-48.1 maintain these "promises continually made," "a total wholly independent pertaining hourly employees." 29, A-49.2 In reliance promises, assert, "continued remain rather than seeking employment." 31, A-49. 4 Between May 1980 January 1984, supervisors orally A-48. On December 15, 1983, 5 17, contending "breached [its] notifying [respondents] closed subsequently advising terminated" without regard 32, A-49.3 "were, . agreements." Petition Removal, A-36. immediately opinion, LMRA. A-4. 6 Ninth Circuit (1986). determined grounded, indirectly, liabilities Union extinguished previous deemed irrelevant. labeled "defensive allegation," "raised defeat [respondents'] grounded those contracts." Id., 936. Since cause did require application concluded arise court.4 7 We granted certiorari, 479 960, 455, 93 401 (1986), now affirm. II A. recently set forth some detail "[t]he century-old jurisdictional framework governing cases courts," Metropolitan Life Insurance Taylor, 481 58, 63, 1542, 1546, 95 55 (1987) (citing Franchise Tax Board Cal. Construction Laborers Vacation Trust Southern 463 1, 103 2841, 77 420 (1983)), we sketch outline here. 9 Only state-court actions originally defendant.5 Absent diversity citizenship, required.6 provides plaintiff's See Gully First National Bank, 299 109, 112-113, 57 96, 97-98, 81 70 (1936). rule makes plaintiff master claim; he she avoid exclusive law.7 10 Ordinarily raised allegations Before 1887, removal, but, year, Congress amended statute. amendment authorize where original exists. Act Mar. 3, ch. 373, 24 552, Aug. 13, 1888, 866, 25 433. Thus, it settled Board, U.S., 12, S.Ct., 2847-2848. 11 exist, however, "independent corollary" id., 22, 2853, known pre-emption" doctrine. occasion, pre-emptive force statute "extraordinary" "converts ordinary common-law one stating purposes rule." Co., supra, 65, 1547.8 Once 24, 2854 ("[I]f comes within scope necessarily 'arises under' law"). 12 complete applied primarily raising provides: "Suits violation organization representing industry affecting commerce defined chapter, organizations, district United States having parties, respect amount controversy citizenship parties." 185(a). 13 Avco Corp. Machinists, decided "[s]tate exist source private enforce 376 337, 340 (CA6 1967), aff'd, 390 557, 1235, 20 126 (1968). affirming, heart [state-law] [is] clause agreement," 558, 1236, law: 14 "[T]he powerful displace entirely 'for organization.' Any purely creature notwithstanding 301." 23, 2853-2854. B asserts reality claims, disagree. agreements, also "substantially agreement." Electrical Workers Hechler, 851, 859, n. 2161, 2166-2167, 791 (1987); see Allis-Chalmers Lueck, 471 202, 220, 105 1904, 1916, 85 206 (1985). entered them. It true members possessed substantial As 16 contrary assertion, Reply Brief Petitioner 10, rely nor address relationship agreement.9 stated, "it inconsistent congressional intent [§ 301] pre-empt rules proscribe conduct, obligations, contract." Corp., 212, 1912. 17 next relies Court's (1944), contends, actually 18 mistaken. First, fact, there held: 19 "Individual cannot subtract ones, circumstances add matters bargain, leave appropriate forums applicable, constitute unfair practices." 339, 581. covering basic error failure recognize permitted assert legal rights, long relied Allis-Chalmers, supra.10 impermissibly attempts create prerequisites ignoring facts (i.e., contracts) along characterization facts, different constituted claim. sum, seek point out agreement; justify "artful pleading" doctrine invoked circumstances.11 21 Second, wishes dispute continued legality viability employee taken argue due principle representation 9(a) (NLRA), 159(a). Wisconsin Employment Comm'n, 427 132, 146, 2548, 2556, 49 396 (1976) (quoting Teamsters Morton, 377 252, 260, 84 1253, 1258, 280 (1964)) (NLRA " 'upset[s] balance power expressed our national policy' "). Or contend enforcement arguably practice NLRA, pre-empted. Diego Build- ing Trades Council Garmon, 359 236, 79 773, 775 (1959) (state infringes Board's primary over charges pre-empted). defendant NLRA court.12 22 Finally, argues rights.13 23 terms decide survives. But must appear may, eschewing choose heard When invokes right chosen plead what regarded defendant's option. cannot, merely injecting plainly transform arising selecting forum shall litigated.14 If so, nothing. since defenses removal. ----, 5, ---- - ----.15 III judgment Affirmed. avers "made clear intention indefinitely promoting entry level mid-level technical positions," giving "favorable performance evaluations," "payment increases bonuses," "training additional job security." 27B, 27C, Written security contained memoranda, manuals, brochures, handbooks, "Code Worldwide Business Conduct Operating Principles." 27E, A-43—A-48. Under implied combination factors, longevity service, commendations promotions, assurances stable continuous employer's personnel practices. Pugh See's Candies, Inc., 116 Cal.App.3d 311, 327-329, 171 Cal.Rptr. 917 (1981); Cleary American Airlines, 111 443, 455-456, 168 722 (1980). causes covenant good faith fair dealing, intentional infliction mental distress, fraud. 36-55, A-51—A-55. Petitioners principally breach-of-contract appears ground unless remedy. For example, stated: "[A] 'completely pre-empted' displaces supplements law—that is, superseding remedy replacing preempts action. These distinct inquiries, satisfied permit court." F.2d, 932 (emphasis original; citations omitted). This squarely contradicted although, time, relief obtained reasoned follows: "The nature available after attaches course, adjudicate controversy. [T]he breadth narrowness subject matter." 561, 1237-1238. although affirm Appeals' judgment, reject reasoning insofar Avco. Bd. (1983) ("The held, [in Avco,] affirmed, petitioner's 'arose 301, thus petitioner had undoubtedly adequate law") citation Title 28 1441 "(a) Except otherwise expressly provided Congress, civil State courts jurisdiction, defendants, division embracing place pending." "all Constitution, laws, treaties States." 1331. Fair Kohler Die & Specialty 228 25, 33 410, 411, 716 (1913) ("Of party who brings upon") (Holmes, J.); Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Thompson, 478 804, 809, 6, 106 3229, 3233, 92 650 (1986) ("Jurisdiction sustained theory advanced"); Great North R. Alexander, 246 276, 282, 38 237, 239-240, 62 713 (1918) ("[T]he his determine status removability case"). See, e.g., Taylor tort §§ 502(a)(1)(B) 502(f) Employee Retirement Income Security 1974, 891, 892); Oneida Indian Nation County Oneida, 414 661, 675, 94 772, 781, 39 73 (1974) (state-law alleges present possession tribal lands "asserts law," law); Avco, supra (discussed infra ). contends examine part evaluation "totality parties' relationship." 35, 24. contractual while positions—agreements played part. irrelevance illustrated disposition Mr. Chambers, His (and, implication, intertwined agreement), remanded A-22. unclear examination required Youngman Nevada Irrigation Dist., Cal.2d 240, 246-247, 74 398, 449 P.2d 462, 466 (1969) ("In pleading promise alleged"); J. Chadbourn, H. Grossman, Van Alstyne, Pleading 1011, p. 159 (1961) (same). not, suggests, "employment-related involving employees" resolved through common 26. stated "not every concerning tangentially provision provisions law." 211, 1911, Claims bearing beyond asserted simply 28, 2854, ("[E]ven never intimated relating exclusively section. instance, battery growing violent strike employer-union contract"). Cf. Federated Department Stores, Moitie, 452 394, 101 2424, 2433-2434, 69 (1981) (BRENNAN, dissenting) (Although "occasionally real federal, regardless characterization, most correctly confine areas (internal quotations negotiated violate 453, 159(a), because, exceptions here relevant, "for disregard representative negotiating majority minority, wages, hours, working conditions." Medo Photo Supply 678, 684, 830, 833, 1007 (1944). Even (which disputed), irrelevant question. reasons similar text, page, transformed intimate view merits arguments discussed above. questions addressed first instance Cook Georgetown Steel 770 1272 (CA4 1985); Medlin Boeing Vertol 620 957 (CA3 1980). offends policy referring disputes arbitration, contains arbitration cause. 36. presumes arbitrable, when, grow grievance-arbitration procedures application.

Category: 9