John E. Warner, Jr. Rick Clay Sam Early Brian Goeglein Mike Campbell Brad Wilson and John Zimmerman v. Chauffeurs, Teamsters, and Helpers Local Union No. 414 and Speedway Redi Mix, Inc.
2017 Ind. App. LEXIS 134
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Employer (Speedway Redi Mix) and Local Union No. 414 were bound by a CBA (May 1, 2013–Mar. 31, 2016) that included a union-security clause making union membership a condition of employment.
- Several truck drivers (the Drivers) resigned, joined another employer (SCP) and a different union, then later returned to Employer pursuant to an NLRB-approved settlement; Employer resumed withholding dues under previously signed dues-checkoff authorizations.
- The Drivers sued Employer and the Union in state court alleging violations of Indiana’s right-to-work Act (Ind. Code §22-6-6-8) and sought recovery of dues (money had and received).
- The trial court dismissed: (1) the membership claim because the CBA clause was void under the Act, and (2) the dues-checkoff claim for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction due to federal preemption.
- On appeal, the Indiana Court of Appeals reversed as to the membership/compulsion claim (holding the Drivers stated a claim under the Act) and affirmed dismissal of the dues-checkoff claim as preempted by federal labor law; case remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Drivers stated a claim under Indiana’s right-to-work Act for being required to become/ remain union members | Drivers: Act broadly prohibits any employer/union act compelling membership; they need not rely on the voided CBA clause | Union: Clause is void under the Act, so no basis for a membership claim | Reversed: Drivers stated a claim; membership status disputes are not preempted and survive T.R. 12(B)(6) dismissal |
| Whether state court has jurisdiction over disputes about dues-checkoff authorizations (and thus Drivers’ money-had-and-received claim) | Drivers: federal law allows checkoffs to be voided when employee leaves and returns; state law can enforce rights | Union: Federal labor law and pervasive congressional regulation of checkoffs preempt state action; state courts lack jurisdiction | Affirmed: Dues-checkoff validity is governed by federal law and preempting precedent; state courts lack jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- San Diego Bldg. Trades Council v. Garmon, 359 U.S. 236 (Sup. Ct.) (federal labor law occupies certain labor disputes; NLRB primary jurisdiction)
- Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. San Diego County Dist. Council of Carpenters, 436 U.S. 180 (Sup. Ct.) (limits on Garmon preemption and exceptions)
- International Bhd. of Operative Potters v. Tell City Chair Co., 295 F. Supp. 961 (S.D. Ind. 1968) (federal preemption over state regulation of checkoff practices)
- SeaPak v. Indus., Tech. & Prof’l Emps., Div. of Nat’l Mar. Union, AFL-CIO, 300 F. Supp. 1197 (S.D. Ga. 1969) (Congressional regulation of checkoffs displaces conflicting state law)
- Communic’ns Workers of Am. v. Bridgett, 512 N.E.2d 195 (Ind. Ct. App. 1987) (membership status not preempted by NLRA; state courts may adjudicate)
- Commc’ns Workers of Am. v. Beckman, 540 N.E.2d 117 (Ind. Ct. App. 1989) (trial court jurisdiction to consider employees’ membership status)
- GKN Co. v. Magness, 744 N.E.2d 397 (Ind. 2001) (standard of review for T.R. 12(B)(1) and (6) motions)
- Illinois State Bd. of Elections v. Socialist Workers Party, 440 U.S. 173 (Sup. Ct.) (limitations on precedential effect of summary affirmances)