698 F.3d 1052
8th Cir.2012Background
- Gopher News operated a print media wholesale distribution business in the Minneapolis–St. Paul area; drivers unit and warehouse unit were represented by the same union.
- Central States administered a defined benefit pension plan for Gopher News’ employees; warehouse unit shifted to a 401(k) plan in 1992, but drivers stayed in the pension plan.
- During the 1990s, Gopher News hired combination workers for driving and warehouse duties, reducing full-time drivers and concentrating only four active drivers in the drivers unit by 2008.
- In 2005 the parties renegotiated the drivers’ CBA; drivers sought to continue the pension plan for six more years, with the union prioritizing its maintenance.
- Central States audited Gopher News and later concluded that using combination workers to drive violated the adverse selection rule.
- Central States terminated Gopher News’ pension participation in early 2007, prompting internal driver and union responses; drivers filed suit in 2008 after various denials and appeals.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the hybrid § 301/fair representation claim is timely. | Gerhardson et al. argue tolling via intervention should save the claim. | Gopher News/Union contend no tolling occurred because intervention was denied. | No tolling; claim untimely. |
| Whether the district court properly dismissed cross-claims against the union under Garmon preemption. | Gopher News asserts claims arise from fraud/misrepresentation related to the CBA. | Preemption applies because claims are “arguably” NLRA unfair labor practices. | Garmon preempts the cross-claims; dismissal affirmed. |
| Whether any exceptions to Garmon preemption apply. | Gopher News argues exceptions for state interests and lack of NLRB forum. | No applicable exceptions because claims are interwoven with the CBA terms. | No exceptions apply; preemption stands. |
| Whether Textron/Kaiser Steel framework governs the court’s jurisdiction over cross-claims. | Gopher News relies on Textron to support ancillary jurisdiction. | Textron controls but Kaiser Steel limits to defensive defenses, not affirmative cross-claims. | Textron ancillary jurisdiction applies only defensively; cross-claims fall under exclusive NLRB jurisdiction. |
Key Cases Cited
- DelCostello v. Int'l Bhd. of Teamsters, 462 U.S. 151 (U.S. (1983)) (hybrid §301/fair representation accrual; six-month NLRA limitations)
- Sears Roebuck & Co. v. San Diego Cnty. Dist. Council of Carpenters, 436 U.S. 180 (U.S. (1978)) (Garmon preemption and related scope principles)
- Textron Lycoming Recip. Engine Div., Avco Corp. v. UAW, 523 U.S. 653 (U.S. (1998)) (gateway into federal court; ancillary jurisdiction to adjudicate related contract validity issues)
- Kaiser Steel Corp. v. Mullins, 455 U.S. 72 (U.S. (1982)) (defensive use of contract invalidity raised under §301; limits on non-defensive relief)
- Superior Waterproofing, Inc. v. Trs. of the Twin City Bricklayers Fringe Benefit Funds, 450 F.3d 324 (8th Cir. (2006)) (preemption analysis involving fraud claims intertwined with CBA; discusses §301 jurisdiction)