Anthony Henry v. Laborers Local 1191
495 Mich. 260
| Mich. | 2014Background
- Four union business agents (Henry, White, Ramsey, Dowdy) worked for Laborers’ Local 1191 and were terminated after they reported suspected fraud/embezzlement, misuse of union funds, improper wages, and unsafe conditions to the U.S. Department of Labor and circulated complaints internally and publicly.
- The DOL investigated and referred the matter to a U.S. Attorney (who declined to prosecute); the DOL file corroborated allegations concerning misuse of union/picket funds.
- Plaintiffs sued in Michigan circuit court under the Michigan Whistleblowers’ Protection Act (WPA), alleging retaliatory discharge for reporting suspected violations to a public body and for cooperating in the ensuing investigation.
- Defendants moved to dismiss, arguing federal preemption: (1) NLRA preemption (claims are “arguably subject” to §§ 7/8 and thus for the NLRB), and (2) LMRDA preemption (union-member rights and leaders’ discretion).
- The Michigan Supreme Court reviewed whether NLRA or LMRDA preempt WPA claims and whether any Garmon exceptions apply; it split plaintiffs’ allegations into (a) working-conditions claims and (b) reporting of alleged criminal misconduct.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether NLRA preempts WPA claims based on reporting to a public body | WPA protects employees who report suspected violations; these reports are not within NLRA when they expose criminal misconduct | NLRA preempts state claims that are "arguably subject" to §§7/8 (concerted activity about working conditions); state court lacks jurisdiction | NLRA preempts WPA claims insofar as they allege reporting/retaliation about working conditions (concerted activity). NLRA does NOT preempt WPA claims based on reporting suspected criminal misconduct. |
| Whether LMRDA preempts WPA claims by union employees | WPA wrongful-termination claims to deter retaliation for reporting crimes are consistent with LMRDA’s goals and permitted | LMRDA protects union democracy and leaders’ discretion to hire/fire; state law cannot intrude on that discretion | LMRDA does not preempt WPA claims premised on reporting suspected criminal misconduct; exception recognized where leaders would use discretion to shield alleged crimes. |
| Whether WPA’s protection for reporting to a public body is generally preempted by federal labor statutes | WPA serves state interest in enforcing law and protecting reporters; should survive unless clear federal preemption | Federal statutes and administrative scheme (NLRB) occupy labor relations field and displace state remedies for conduct "arguably" within NLRA/LMRDA | Split result: state courts retain jurisdiction over WPA claims about reporting criminal wrongdoing; claims about improving wages/safety (classic §7 activities) are preempted and belong to NLRB. |
| Appropriate remedy / procedural posture | Allow plaintiffs to proceed in state court on non-preempted claims | Dismiss preempted claims; require NLRB adjudication of those matters | Affirm in part: remand to Wayne Circuit Court for further proceedings; permit state-court WPA claims limited to reporting criminal misconduct; working-condition claims preempted. |
Key Cases Cited
- San Diego Bldg. Trades Coun. v. Garmon, 359 U.S. 236 (federal preemption when activity is "arguably subject" to §§7/8 of the NLRA)
- Eastex, Inc. v. NLRB, 437 U.S. 556 (scope of §7 protections and limits where activity is too attenuated from employees’ interests)
- Belknap, Inc. v. Hale, 463 U.S. 491 (preemption inquiry — whether the Board could have decided the case and whether state controversy is identical)
- Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. San Diego Council of Carpenters, 436 U.S. 180 (Garmon exceptions: peripheral concerns and deeply rooted state interests)
- Finnegan v. Leu, 456 U.S. 431 (LMRDA protects members’ rights; distinguishes protection of members from employment decisions by elected leaders)
- Farmer v. United Brotherhood of Carpenters, 430 U.S. 290 (state torts may survive NLRA preemption where state interest is distinct and adjudication would not require resolving NLRA-covered issues)