Copeland v. PENSKE LOGISTICS LLC, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 6916

Penske Logistics provided transportation services for the Indianapolis Star from 1999 to 2009.
As the Star bid, Penske lost the contract and announced cessation of operations on May 19, 2009.
The Star was Penske’s only customer, so business shutdown followed by expiration of the CBA two days later.
Plaintiffs asserted a hybrid §301 claim alleging breach of the CBA and union duty of fair representation for the severance package.
District court granted summary judgment, finding no breach of the CBA and no viable DFR claim.
On appeal, district-court reasons about jurisdiction and the scope of §301 were reviewed; judgments on ancillary logistics issues were remanded.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the hybrid §301 claim is cognizable here	Copeland asserted breach of CBA and union DFR for severance	No breach of the CBA and no viably pled DFR claim	Hybrid claim partly affirmed; jurisdictional issues remanded
Whether §1367(a) provides jurisdiction for the logistics agreement claim	Plaintiffs are third-party beneficiaries seeking broader benefits	No aggregate amount, no diversity, no common controversy	Remand for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction; vacate
Whether the union's bargaining conduct is within this court's §301 jurisdiction	Union failed to bargain hard enough for enhanced benefits	Unfair labor practice claims fall to the NLRB, not §301	Within Board's exclusive jurisdiction; §301 claims not viable
Whether the union’s alleged failure to bargain for extra severance falls under unfair-labor-practice provisions	Union breached its DF R by not pushing for more severance	That claim is an unfair-labor-practice, not a contract claim	Outside §301; Board has primary jurisdiction
Whether the district court correctly resolved the logistics agreement claims	Star would cover severance costs via logistics agreement	No coverage under §301; independent contract dispute	Remanded to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction

First National Maintenance Corp. v. NLRB, 452 U.S. 666 (1981) (effects bargaining permitted; only remedies via NLRB for unfair labor practices)
Vaca v. Sipes, 386 U.S. 171 (1967) (hybrid §301 action requires breach of contract and DF R breach)
Marquez v. Screen Actors Guild, Inc., 525 U.S. 33 (1998) (unfair-labor-practice remedies rest with NLRB; Board remedies primary)
Communications Workers v. Beck, 487 U.S. 735 (1988) (board-exclusive remedies for unfair labor practices during bargaining)
Textile Workers v. Lincoln Mills, 353 U.S. 448 (1957) (§301 suits enforce contracts; scope of contract-based relief)
Motor Coach Employees v. Lockridge, 403 U.S. 274 (1971) (§301 claims can be ancillary to contract breach; not standalone DF R claim)
San Diego Building Trades Council v. Garmon, 359 U.S. 236 (1959) (preemption by NLRB where labor-law issues predominate; preemption as defense)
Brown v. Pro Football, Inc., 518 U.S. 231 (1996) (jurisdiction preserved where labor-law issues intersect with antitrust)
Smith v. Evening News Association, 371 U.S. 195 (1962) (concurrent jurisdiction; Board and courts interact over labor-contract disputes)