Simms v. Local 1752, International Longshoremen Ass'n
838 F.3d 613
| 5th Cir. | 2016Background
- Patrick Simms, a non-union worker employed by CSA, was required by a collective-bargaining agreement to obtain referrals through Local 1752’s exclusive hiring hall.
- Local 1752 requires nonmembers to pay a hiring-hall "service fee" (collectible via paycheck checkoff) to be referred for work; Simms did not initially pay and was cut off from referrals.
- Ten days after being denied referrals, Simms signed a payment-agreement under protest and was again referred.
- Simms sued, asserting (1) the hiring-hall fee violated Mississippi’s right-to-work statute, (2) the union breached its duty of fair representation by assessing the fee, and (3) the payment agreement was void as against public policy.
- The district court dismissed for failure to state a claim, holding that Mississippi’s right-to-work provision is preempted by federal labor law as to hiring-hall fees and that Simms alleged no facts showing a breach of the duty of fair representation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §14(b) of the NLRA allows Mississippi to prohibit hiring-hall fees charged to nonmembers | Simms: paying hiring-hall fees is tantamount to compulsory "membership" under §14(b), so state right-to-work law can bar the fees | Local 1752: §14(b) does not apply; federal law permits reasonable, nondiscriminatory hiring-hall fees and preempts conflicting state law | Held: §14(b) does not permit Mississippi to prohibit hiring-hall fees; state right-to-work law is preempted to the extent it would ban such fees |
| Whether an exclusive hiring hall’s fee constitutes unlawful union-security/closed-shop membership under §8(a)(3)/§14(b) | Simms: any mandatory payment to a union equals membership for §14(b) purposes | Local 1752: hiring-hall fees are pre-hire referral charges, distinct from post-hire union-security agreements | Held: hiring-hall fees are distinct from union-security membership; reasonable referral fees do not constitute "membership" under §14(b) |
| Whether the union breached its duty of fair representation by charging the fee | Simms: charging any fee to nonmembers of hiring hall is unfair and breaches the duty | Local 1752: charging reasonable, nondiscriminatory referral fees is lawful and not arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad faith | Held: Complaint fails to allege arbitrary, discriminatory, or bad-faith conduct; no plausible duty-to-represent claim alleged |
| Whether the payment agreement signed under protest is void as against public policy under Mississippi law | Simms: the agreement is void because based on an unlawful fee under state law | Local 1752: state-law challenge fails because the relevant state provisions are preempted by federal law | Held: Court did not reach an independent public-policy invalidation because the state-law basis is preempted; Simms did not press the argument on appeal in any case |
Key Cases Cited
- Wis. Dep’t of Indus., Labor & Human Relations v. Gould Inc., 475 U.S. 282 (discussing federal preemption of state regulation in labor relations)
- Garmon, 359 U.S. 236 (establishing broad NLRB preemption in labor disputes)
- Beck, 487 U.S. 735 (analyzing the financial core of union "membership" in the union-security context)
- Local 357, Int’l Bhd. of Teamsters v. NLRB, 365 U.S. 667 (exclusive hiring halls not per se illegal; discrimination is the key concern)
- Oil, Chem. & Atomic Workers Int’l Union v. Mobil Oil Corp., 426 U.S. 407 (describing §14(b) as preserving some state power over union-security arrangements)
- Gen. Motors Corp., 373 U.S. 734 (historical context on union-security provisions)
- Pittsburgh Press Co. v. NLRB, 977 F.2d 652 (D.C. Cir.) (treating legitimate hiring-hall referral fees as permissible)
- NLRB v. Hous. Chapter, Associated Gen. Contractors, Inc., 349 F.2d 449 (5th Cir.) (holding §14(b) does not reach hiring-hall fees)
- Breininger v. Sheet Metal Workers Int’l Ass’n Local Union No. 6, 493 U.S. 67 (duty of fair representation standard)
- Vaca v. Sipes, 386 U.S. 171 (defining duty of fair representation)
- Air Line Pilots Ass’n v. O’Neill, 499 U.S. 65 (union duty-to-represent principles)