Romano Constr., L.L.C. v. B.G.C., L.L.C.
2013 Ohio 681
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- Romano Construction, LLC was hired by B.G.C., LLC to perform plaster work but was informed the work would not be needed due to a union-picket at the site.
- B.G.C., LLC indicated it would hire a union company to perform the plaster job because some tradesmen would not cross the picket line.
- Romano sued Local Union No. 80 for intentional interference with a business relationship.
- Local 80 moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, arguing NLRA preemption; the trial court agreed and dismissed.
- Romano appealed, challenging the dismissal as erroneous on preemption grounds; the appellate court affirmed the dismissal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court properly dismissed for NLRA preemption. | Romano argues the claim is not preempted. | Local 80 argues the claim is preempted by NLRA. | Preemption applies; claim is dismissed. |
Key Cases Cited
- J.A. Croson Co. v. J.A. Guy, Inc., 81 Ohio St.3d 346 (1998) (preemption framework for NLRA)
- San Diego Bldg. Trades Council, Millmen’s Union, Local 2020 v. Garmon, 359 U.S. 236 (1959) (Garmon doctrine: state jurisdiction yields for NLRA-protected activities)
- Fechko v. Excavating, Inc. v. Ohio Valley & S. States LECET, 9th Dist. No. 09CA0006-M, 2009-Ohio-5155 (2009) (Torts interfacing with NLRA picketing; Garmon exception limits)
- Ohio State Building & Construction Trades Council v. Cuyahoga County Bd. of Commissioners, 98 Ohio St.3d 214 (2002) (NLRA preemption standards; Machinists interpretation context)
- A & D Supermarkets, Inc., #2 v. United Food & Commercial Workers, Local Union 880, 732 F.Supp. 770 (1989) (Machinists doctrine context; balance of bargaining power)
- Bollenbacher v. Wayne Cty. Bd. of Commrs., 9th Dist. No. 11CA0062, 2012-Ohio-4198 (2012) (De novo review on Civ.R. 12(B)(1) dismissals; jurisdiction focus)