Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

Labor — fair representation — jurisdiction

By: WISCONSIN LAW JOURNAL STAFF//April 6, 2012//

Labor — fair representation — jurisdiction

By: WISCONSIN LAW JOURNAL STAFF//April 6, 2012//

Listen to this article

United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit

Civil

Labor — fair representation — jurisdiction

A district court lacks jurisdiction over a claim that a union failed to bargain for severance benefits not included in the CBA, when the employer’s business was discontinued.

“The parties may have been confused between preemption and lack of jurisdiction. When a claim arises under some other federal statute (the antitrust laws, for example), the Board’s authority over unfair labor practices may supersede (or in the case of state law, preempt) the application of these other sources of law. See San Diego Building Trades Council v. Garmon, 359 U.S. 236 (1959). This doctrine usually is a defense, not a limit on subject-matter jurisdiction. See Baker v. IBP, Inc., 357 F.3d 685, 688 (7th Cir. 2004). Jurisdiction of an antitrust suit is secure even when labor law displaces the Sherman Act. See, e.g., Brown v. Pro Football, Inc., 518 U.S. 231 (1996). The problem in this case, by contrast, is that the plaintiffs’ claim does not arise under any federal statute other than §301, which is at once a grant of jurisdiction and a source of substantive rights. See Textile Workers v. Lincoln Mills, 353 U.S. 448 (1957). Section 301 is limited to suit on a contract; an asserted violation of a union’s duty of fair representation by failing to enforce the contract can be ancillary to the claim that a promise in a CBA has been broken. See Motor Coach Employees v. Lockridge, 403 U.S. 274, 298–301 (1971). Plaintiffs’ argument that Local 135 did not bargain hard enough to get benefits exceeding those provided in the CBA is not a claim for breach of contract and therefore can’t be pursued under §301. It belongs to the Labor Board alone. Section 301 provides enforcement of deals that were struck, rather than damages for deals never made.”

Affirmed in part, and Vacated in part.

11-1955 Copeland v. Penske Logistics, LLC

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, Young, J., Easterbrook, J.

Polls

Should Steven Avery be granted a new evidentiary hearing?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Legal News

See All Legal News

WLJ People

Sea all WLJ People

Opinion Digests