Court Opinion

ID: 9477903
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 06:34:29.930861+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:46:07.169599
License: Public Domain

RIPPLE, Circuit Judge,
dissenting.
Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA) vests the district court with jurisdiction in any case alleging “violation of contracts between an employer and a labor organization_” 29 U.S.C. § 185(a). The plain language of the statute therefore establishes that the district court should have exercised jurisdiction here. The complaint filed by IBEW alleges a violation of a labor contract, seeks damages arising from that violation, and seeks the defendant’s future compliance with the terms of the contract.
The majority concludes that it was proper for the district court to decline jurisdiction because of this court’s holding in NDK Corp. v. Local 1550, United Food & Com*915mercial Workers, 709 F.2d 491 (7th Cir. 1983). In NDK, the plaintiff sought rescission, not enforcement, of a labor contract. We held that there was no jurisdiction under section 301. “NDK did not bring,” we pointed out, “a suit alleging a violation of a valid contract....” Id. at 493. Section 301, we held, “provides jurisdiction for suits for violation of contracts but not for determinations of the validity of contracts where validity is the ultimate issue.” Id.
NDK is different from this case. Here, the plaintiffs have alleged a breach of contract; they seek a remedy for that breach. This case is therefore similar to International Union of Operating Eng’rs, Local 150 v. G. Bliudzius Contractors, Inc., 730 F.2d 1093 (7th Cir.1984), and Mogge v. District No. 8, Int’l Ass’n of Machinists, 387 F.2d 880 (7th Cir.1967), cert. denied, 391 U.S. 936, 88 S.Ct. 1849, 20 L.Ed.2d 855 (1968). In those cases, the plaintiffs alleged violations of labor contracts, and the defendants responded by asserting the invalidity of those contracts. In both cases, the dispositive issue related to contract validity. Indeed, in Bliudzius, which was decided after NDK, this court said that “[t]he sole issue presented to this Court is whether the Company is bound by the collective bargaining agreement....” 730 F.2d at 1095. Even though the contested issue in Bliudzius and Mogge related to contract validity, this court nonetheless exercised jurisdiction because a violation of a labor contract had been alleged. It is thus clear that federal jurisdiction under section 301 is proper as long as the plaintiff alleges the breach of a labor contract. Jurisdiction is not defeated merely because the defendant takes the position that there is no breach because the contract is not valid.1
In my view, the court’s error can be traced to its flawed methodology. The court concludes that contract validity is the “ultimate” issue here by examining “the predominant thrust of the complaint.” The court says that “[a]t its core, the complaint simply does not raise the question of whether Sign-Craft violated a valid collective bargaining agreement....” The court admits that this conclusion is based on “inferences.” I respectfully suggest that, at this stage of the litigation, a court may not dismiss a complaint when dismissal depends on drawing inferences against the plaintiff.
Even if the majority’s inferences are appropriate and correct, those inferences still do not lead to the conclusion reached by the majority. As long as a plaintiff’s complaint alleges a violation of a contract, section 301 is triggered. It is irrelevant to the jurisdictional inquiry that the plaintiff also seeks an injunction to compel future compliance. See generally A.T. Massey Coal Co. v. United Mine Workers, 799 F.2d 142, 146 (4th Cir.1986), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 107 S.Ct. 1964, 95 L.Ed.2d 536 (1987). Oftentimes, future compliance may be the most important remedy to the aggrieved party. The relative importance of various remedies for the breach of contract will change from case to case. This consideration is not relevant to the jurisdictional inquiry. I respectfully dissent.

. The majority comments that “this case does not require any further extension or elucidation of the existing § 301 law in our Circuit.” Since NDK did not involve any allegation of a contract violation, I fail to see how today’s decision does not constitute an extension of the law in this circuit. Moreover, the majority does not cite a single case from any court in which jurisdiction was rejected even though a contract violation had been alleged. In fact, the majority’s footnote 2 squarely points out that this decision conflicts with the view taken by every other circuit.