Court Opinion

ID: 9739844
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 20:22:12.480739+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:14.249048
License: Public Domain

DUNN, Retired Justice
(dissenting).
The decision of the trial court should be reversed because the court lacked jurisdiction, as Mathews’ claims were preempted by federal law.
If Mathews claimed, and the jury found, that the Union interfered with his employment contract with Twin City, in violation of “right to work laws,” it is preempted because Sections 8(b)(1)(A) and 8(b)(2) of the NLRA, as amended, expressly prohibit such conduct and it would be an unfair labor practice.
If the claim is made that Mathews’ employment contract was in violation of SDCL ch. 60-8, the only evidence of contracts presented was the Union and Local agreements, which only contained nondiscriminatory referral system provisions and were not prohibited Union security agreements. Lacking evidence of a Union security agreement, there is no jurisdiction provided for state courts under SDCL ch. 60-8.
The majority would read in an oral Union security agreement “because that was the only way he could have been fired” under the written agreements. It overlooks the fact that his firing could arguably be an unfair labor practice under the federal act.