Adamo Demolition Co. v. Int'l Union of Operating Eng'rs
3f4th866
6th Cir.2021Background
- Adamo Demolition contracted to staff a demolition project at Ford; the International Union of Operating Engineers Local 150 (the Union) was the union involved.
- The National Maintenance Agreement (NMA), a nationwide collective bargaining agreement, governed hiring, required provision of skilled/trained workers, set a hiring procedure (including a 48-hour rule), and established an arbitration/grievance scheme and a prohibition on strikes/picketing.
- Adamo sued in state court alleging the Union (and its president) refused to provide qualified operators, sent unqualified workers, intimidated Adamo’s workers (telling them to stop working), and made defamatory statements; causes included tortious interference (with contract and business relationships), injurious falsehood, and defamation.
- Defendants removed to federal court and attached the NMA to their motion to dismiss; Adamo sought remand.
- The district court concluded Adamo’s claims were completely preempted by § 301 of the LMRA because resolution required interpreting the NMA, dismissed the action, and denied remand.
- On appeal, the Sixth Circuit affirmed, holding each category of Adamo’s claims inextricably intertwined with the NMA and therefore § 301–preempted.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §301 preempts tortious interference with contract claim | Adamo: claim arises under state tort law and does not require interpreting the NMA | Union: proving interference requires construing NMA duties (who is a qualified worker; whether ordering workers off was permitted) | Held: preempted — resolution requires interpreting NMA terms |
| Whether §301 preempts tortious interference with business-relationship claims (CCC, Ford, union operators) | Adamo: these are state-law business torts independent of the NMA | Union: assessing justification/malice requires construing NMA-created rights and obligations | Held: preempted — claims implicate NMA and cannot be resolved without contract interpretation |
| Whether §301 preempts injurious falsehood and defamation claims | Adamo: statements are independently false and defamatory under state law | Union: the identified statements arose in a labor context and whether they were justified turns on the NMA; some statements are imperatives not plainly false | Held: preempted — determining falsity/privilege depends on the NMA; claims dismissed |
| Whether district court erred in considering the NMA on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion and denying remand | Adamo: district court relied on disputed facts and improperly adopted defendants’ version; remand was proper | Union: NMA is integral, authentic, and governs the dispute; removal was proper because §301 completely preempts | Held: no error — NMA was integral to the complaint, removal appropriate, and denying remand correct |
Key Cases Cited
- Local 174, Teamsters v. Lucas Flour Co., 369 U.S. 95 (1962) (federal labor law and arbitration central to industrial peace)
- Allis-Chalmers Corp. v. Lueck, 471 U.S. 202 (1985) (broad §301 preemption to protect arbitration’s effectiveness)
- New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964) (actual malice standard for defamatory statements in certain public-interest contexts)
- Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386 (1987) (complete preemption doctrine converts certain state claims into federal ones)
- Lingle v. Norge Div. of Magic Chef, Inc., 486 U.S. 399 (1988) (state claims are not preempted if they can be resolved without interpreting the collective-bargaining agreement)
- Avco Corp. v. Aero Lodge No. 735, Int’l Ass’n of Machinists, 390 U.S. 557 (1968) (upholding removal based on §301 preemption)
- DeCoe v. Gen. Motors Corp., 32 F.3d 212 (6th Cir. 1994) (two-step test: whether proof requires interpreting the CBA and whether the right asserted is created by the CBA)
- Rivet v. Regions Bank of La., 522 U.S. 470 (1998) (artful pleading doctrine and complete preemption)