2013 Ohio 2094
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- CNR Trucking, Inc. bound to Local 310 CBA on May 16, 2009 and to the Local 18 addenda via August 31, 2011 agreements.
- On September 1, 2011, CNR agreed to be bound by the Local 18 CBA terms and conditions as to hours, wages, fringes, and benefits.
- Local 18 alleged that on September 27, 2011, CNR repudiated the CBA and its addenda, and Local 310 caused the repudiation.
- Local 18 asserted breach of contract against CNR and tortious interference with contract against Local 310, seeking damages and specific performance.
- The trial court dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, holding claims preempted by NLRA 8(b)(4)(D); Local 18 appealed.
- The appellate court affirmed, holding Local 18’s tortious interference claim preempted under Garmon and Machinists analyses.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are Local 18’s tortious interference claims preempted by NLRA 8(b)(4)(D)? | Local 18 argues no preemption; no jurisdictional dispute between two unions with the same employer. | Local 310 and CNR claims fall within 8(b)(4)(D) as a jurisdictional dispute between unions over work assignment. | Yes, preempted under Garmon; jurisdictional dispute analyzed under 8(b)(4)(D). |
| Does repudiation of a contract extinguish a contract for preemption purposes? | repudiation does not rescind a contract; preserves potential for preemption analysis. | repudiation indicates breach, supporting preemption by NLRA. | Repudiation constitutes breach, not rescission; supports preemption analysis. |
| May a state court consider preemption without NLRB resolution on the same issue? | NLRB resolution is required before preemption bars state jurisdiction. | Court may decide preemption without NLRB decision if applicable. | Preemption analysis may proceed; NLRB decision not a prerequisite for ruling. |
| Did the trial court properly consider materials outside the pleadings in a Civ.R. 12(C) motion? | outside materials improperly considered. | materials attached to answer properly considered in Civ.R. 12(C) review. | Properly considered attached exhibits; no error in treating them as part of the record. |
Key Cases Cited
- NLRB v. Radio & Television Broadcast Engineers Union, Local 1212, 364 U.S. 573 (1961) (illustrates jurisdictional disputes under 8(b)(4)(D))
- San Diego Bldg. Trades Council v. Garmon, 359 U.S. 236 (1959) (Garmon preemption of state regulation in NLRA-covered activities)
- Lodge 76, Internatl. Assn. of Machinists & Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO v. Wisconsin Employment Relations Comm., 427 U.S. 132 (1976) (Machinists preemption analysis for conduct left to free play of economic forces)
- Weber v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc., 348 U.S. 468 (1955) (limits of federal preemption in labor relations)
- Cuyahoga County Bd. of Commrs. v. Ohio State Bldg. & Constr. Trades Council, 98 Ohio St.3d 214 (2002) (discussion of NLRA preemption and field occupation)
- Cleveland ex rel. O’Malley v. White, 148 Ohio App.3d 565 (2002) (preemption does not require NLRB decision on same issue)