DHSC, LLC v. California Nurses Ass'n/National Nurses Organizing Committee, 700 F. App'x 466

Background

Affinity Medical Center (employer) and the California Nurses Association (Union) negotiated but never executed a Labor Relations Agreement and an Election Procedure Agreement that referenced arbitration for disputes.
The Union filed a representation petition with the NLRB; both parties signed the Board’s standard Consent Election Agreement, which vested the Regional Director with final authority over election objections.
The Union won the NLRB-conducted election; Affinity challenged several ballots but produced no supporting evidence, and the Regional Director certified the Union.
The Union filed unfair-labor-practice charges alleging Affinity refused to bargain; the NLRB General Counsel prosecuted and an ALJ and then the Board found Affinity violated the NLRA.
Affinity separately sued in federal district court under LMRA § 301, claiming the Union breached an implied agreement to arbitrate election disputes; the district court dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction as the dispute was primarily representational.
On appeal, the Sixth Circuit affirmed: the Board had already exercised jurisdiction and decided the core issue (no enforceable arbitration agreement), and Affinity had also signed a Consent Election Agreement conceding the Board’s authority.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court has subject-matter jurisdiction over Affinity’s § 301 breach-of-contract claim	Affinity: claim is a contract-interpretation dispute about an implied arbitration agreement (pre- and post-election conduct), so federal courts may decide under § 301.	Union: dispute is primarily representational and the NLRB has primary/exclusive jurisdiction because it has already considered/decided the matter.	Held: No jurisdiction — dispute is primarily representational and the Board has already exercised jurisdiction.
Whether the NLRB already decided the core question (existence/enforceability of an implied arbitration agreement)	Affinity: the Board’s proceedings did not resolve the contract question the district court must decide.	Union: the Board explicitly rejected Affinity’s ‘‘oral ad hoc’’ arbitration defense in its decision.	Held: The Board addressed and rejected the implied-arbitration defense; the same issue is before the district court, so preemption applies.
Whether the Consent Election Agreement or prior negotiations preclude arbitration (waiver/estoppel)	Affinity: negotiations and prior (though unsigned) agreements implied arbitration for election disputes.	Union: the signed Consent Election Agreement expressly gave the Regional Director final authority over election objections; Affinity waived any arbitration claim by signing and by failing to present evidence during the Board process.	Held: The Consent Election Agreement and Affinity’s conduct foreclose the implied arbitration claim.
Whether § 301’s purpose (forum for contract disputes) requires federal courts to decide this claim despite representational overlap	Affinity: § 301 expands forums to enforce employer–union agreements; Congress did not intend to deny courts jurisdiction here.	Union: § 301 does not transfer initial representational decisions from the Board to courts; courts must respect NLRB primary jurisdiction where representation is central.	Held: § 301 does not override NLRB primary jurisdiction; this dispute implicates representational status and belongs to the Board.

Key Cases Cited

Garmon v. San Diego, 359 U.S. 236 (1959) (NLRB has primary jurisdiction over representational labor issues)
Carey v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 375 U.S. 261 (1964) (distinguishes when federal courts may entertain contract claims related to representation)
Buffalo Forge Co. v. United Steelworkers, 428 U.S. 397 (1976) (§ 301 jurisdiction includes enforcement of arbitration clauses in collective-bargaining agreements)
Paper, Allied-Industrial, Chem. & Energy Workers v. Air Prods. & Chems., 300 F.3d 667 (6th Cir. 2002) (federal courts may enforce arbitration clauses even if related to representation, but not where dispute is primarily representational)
Int’l Brotherhood of Elec. Workers v. Trafftech, 461 F.3d 690 (6th Cir. 2006) (describes when Board has exclusive jurisdiction: already exercised jurisdiction or initial representation decision required)
DiPonio Construction Co. v. Int’l Union of Bricklayers, 687 F.3d 744 (6th Cir. 2012) (reiterates test for representational preemption and initial-decision requirement)
Wright v. Universal Maritime Service Corp., 525 U.S. 70 (1998) (statutory interpretation limits § 301’s reach over representation issues)