Betty Moore v. General Motors Corporation

$10,000 at a loss its contents at a Louis FAGG, R. GIBSON and Before JOHN loss, $2,500 buy and contracted to a house HUNTER, Senior Dis Judges, and However, when she Green. Judge.* trict reported September for work on Bowling there was no work for her GIBSON, Judge. JOHN R. plant. Green Betty appeals from dismissal for The case for trial and re- was set GM against her claim jurisdiction lack of summary judgment newed its motion for negli- Corporation Motors based on General dismiss,2 arguing and to that the court was misrepresentation fraud. She gent because employee of the General was a laid-off plaintiffs claims arose in the context of the Plant in St. Louis and was offered Motors employment relationship gov- and were plant Bowling employment at a new Bargaining Agree- erned the Collective Green, Kentucky. Her instructions to re- ment. the claims Therefore asserted would Bowling Septem- port to work at Green preempted by be national labor law and withdrawn, but in the were ber policy. Moore then filed an amended com- her house in meantime she had sold St. plaint re-alleging negligent the claims of Green, Louis, Bowling bought another in misrepresentation adding a count damages resulting from and as a result of based on fraud that GM which transactions, brought the action these falsely represented to Moore that she appeal she against General Motors. On employed be on a second shift her claims under state law for that Bowling they Green Plant at a time when pre- misrepresentation fraud and are not yet there would not be a second knew shift. empted by national law. We affirm support The affidavits filed in of the of the district court.1 summary judgment that motion for claim brought against production this action Gener- the transfer of Corvette claiming contract and Bowling al Motors breach of Louis to Green was a transfer St. concerning negligence major operations meaning in its actions within the contract, Bowling plant. the labor and that GM and the transfer Green provisions of the had entered into a Memorandum of Moore contends that the Union3 Bargaining Agreement dealing Understanding which allowed Louis Collective St. plant duty plant employees eligible apply to be for with transfer to a new created a Plant.4 The to conduct such transfer with due care. transfer to Green * Hunter, Betty Implement America of which Elmo B. Senior District Workers of Honorable Missouri, Judge for the Western District of sit- Moore is a member. designation. ting by Paragraph Bargaining 96 of the Collective Noce, 1. The Honorable David D. United States Agreement states: Missouri, Magistrate for Eastern District major operations is a When there transfer 636(c) pursuant case to 28 U.S.C. § heard the plants, presented between the case and, investigation, Corporation after previously had filed a motion for summa- GM will be reviewed with the International Union ground ry judgment on the that Moore was solution, negotiate equitable in an effort to asserting a contract that a claim for breach of principles in accordance with the set forth in grievance proce- provided and arbitration Any previous paragraph. of em- she The district dure which had exhausted. resulting ployees from this review shall be on motion, holding denied the that Moore's court employees the basis that such are transferred negligent misrepre- complaint a claim of stated seniority except parties may as the with full rather than a claim for breach of sentation mutually agree. otherwise contract. paragraph goes provide for a reloca- on to seniority employees tion allowance for whose to the International 3. “Union” refers plants. transferred between Automobile, Agricultural Aerospace United though given specific to amend her leave

Memorandum of provided allege the Collec- under 29 and the Union U.S.C. GM applied Agreement 185(a) (1982) for breach of ap- plant, provided for the Bowling Green make Bargaining Agreement, did not including procedures, of various plication compliance allege and did amendment specified ap- procedures, grievance requirements of the Collective to be St. procedures followed plication regard to the Bargaining Agreement employees. Louis Agree- set in the grievance procedure forth applications pointed from both sought had to the broad ment. The employees of the St. and laid-off Agree- active Plant, had on October Louis ment5 the ultimate which application Moore's Betty received grievance procedure is final and decision Bowling Green. had to members, the the binding on its 30, months. On June laid off for 18 been Magis- employer. and the The 1981, offering letter sent to Moore a was procedure grievance trate held that the Green, Bowling on her mandatory was and that Moore had failed 2, 1981, acceptance the signed of July she procedures. He conclud- to exhaust those the employment it to letter delivered yield applica- ed state law must to the that reported for a in St. She office Louis. and, accordingly, tion of national labor law July physical examination on the to con- court was report Bowling that date told to to on was law sider the common claims. 1981, 8, September a.m. on at 7:30 Green that claims are not Moore asserts 23,1981, delayed its decision On preempted. right While her to insist on an concerning to add second shift whether being her was fed job to available offered 18, August meeting. August On until its erally negli the protected, she claims 1981, scheduling com- production the GM gence in the fashion doing or fraud so mittee met the second and determined protected. should be She relies Bowling production at Green should shift Sears, Diego v. Roebuck & Co. San following postponed. day a mail- be Carpenters, District County Council of gram informing was sent Moore her that to 1745, 436 L.Ed.2d 209 U.S. Bowling production the second shift trespass pickets (1978), by in which a union January postponed until Green by preempted was not to be found report should not to and that she and Farmer Brother laws, v. United labor September receipt A return work on Carpenters, hood mailgram signed by August 430 U.S. was of eventually to (1977), 1982. Moore was notified L.Ed.2d 338 which a report to Green June outrageous conduct claim for intentional postponed was request and at her this date was under state laws. She further allowed June 14 commenced work until when she her claim malicious fraud $1,240.00 Bowling Green. Moore received Linn malicious similar to the libel provided as under the in relocation benefits Workers, v. United Plant Guard (1966), L.Ed.2d Reconsider, peripheral held to be a which was ruling Motion to on the Moore, only. out that al- concern pointed involving interpretation Paragraph Any issue and/or 28 of Agreement application of term of this provides: Agreement directly may party be initiated either with grievance, Any employee having des- or one Upon parties party. other failure of to group having griev- ignated of a member interpreta- agree respect correct grievance up with ance take the should first application Agreement tion or issue, attempt adjust it. will foreman who directly appealed then be provides: Paragraph Agreement 55 of the (43). Umpire paragraph Magistrate correctly by Congress ruled that asserted requirements preempts. federal labor law When state imposed by state law. Nor has it mat- regulate law invoked activities which tered whether the states have acted qre subject of a collective through general laws of applica- broad agreement, policy re tion specifically rather laws than directed quires yield applica that state law governance towards the of industrial re- national law. Diego tion of San Regardless lations. the mode Garmon, Building Trades Council v. adopted, to allow the States to control 236, 243-45, 773, 778-79, conduct which is the of national principle pre regulation would potential create frustra- emption operates in the national labor field purposes. tion national judicial state and federal authori delimit At times it has not been clear whether ty disputes over labor in order to avoid particular the' activity regulated by the judicial conflict between the exertion of § governed States was 7 or power, thereby provid and administrative was, perhaps, outside both these sec- ing uniformity stability in the reso tions. But courts are primary tribu- lution of labor relations conflicts. Amal adjudicate nals to such issues. It is es- gamated Association Motor Coach Em sential to the administration of the Act ployees Lockridge, that these determinations be left in the (1971).. 29 L.Ed.2d 473 first instance to the National Labor Rela- regulation, To achieve uniform federal tions Board. What is outside the Congress enacted the National Labor Rela- authority this Court’s cannot remain § Act, seq., intending tions 29 U.S.C. 151 et power within a State’s and jurisdic- state replace inconsistent state laws with a yield tion too must pri- exclusive policy.6 uniform national labor In Garmon mary competence of the Board. Supreme the guidelines Court set forth the 244-45, 359 (foot- U.S. at 79 S.Ct. at 779 in applying be followed federal labor law an in the bring action ion members (1958). 2 L.Ed.2d 1030 S.Ct. federal court for breach of a collec district injuries [Sjtate court to redress actions agreement even bargaining where tive by violence or threats of violence caused alleged arguably protected or conduct was administra are consistent with effective by the Labor Relations prohibited National tion the federal scheme: actions of Such 298-99, Lockridge, at Act. 403 U.S. adjudicated regard to the can be given Although leave S.Ct. 1923-24. underlying of controver merits labor complaint a amend her to state claim sy. Agreement, the Collective Farmer, 299-300, S.Ct. 430 U.S. at so, filed an not do but rather did Russell, also See U.S. at law alleging common additional (Warren, C.J., dissenting). Un- S.Ct. at attempted has to character fraud. Moore conduct, complained Russell like in of a a ize her tort action rather than claims (threats (malicious Linn violence), libel), violation, (intentional infliction of emo- and Farmer however, agree Agreement; we with distress), does Moore’s tional district, rights conclusion that court’s conduct, outrageous involve or violent arise which Moore bases on claims damages alleges which Moore she suf- Bargaining Agreement. from the Collective partially result of her fered least were rights arising All and claims

personal reaction transfer. tor- agreement in an in bargainings collective alleged to have been commit- tious conduct dustry affecting right commerce are ease Moore’s interstate ted in this involves by State law does plant governed in federal law. to the new pri independent source of right This from the Collec- exist as Green. evolves rights the Memo- vate to enforce collective Bargaining, Agreement Lucas Teamsters v. Local the Un- contracts. randum Co., 7 tion and properly 369 U.S. dismissed her Flour action. (1962); Textile Workers Un- of the district court is af- n Mills, 448, 77 - ion v. Lincoln firmed. appli- 1 L.Ed.2d 972 That the FAGG, Judge, dissenting. preemption federal cannot be cation of policy The national labor considerations allege by attempts only avoided state by which underlie the cases cited the court recently contract tort theories was made support do not the result it has I reached. clear in a Third Circuit case in which the do not believe that federal gives labor law Court stated: fraudulently injure GM license an em- 301(a) ... reaches not [SJection ployee impunity from the control of contracts, suits but suits seek- state tort law. ing remedies of such con- violation Almost four weeks after accepted ____ is not the nature of tracts The issue employment, falsely rep- GM’s offer of remedy sought for the viola- resented the date when she was to start tion, remedy sought whether the but work, starting by date known it to be may require that the court from which it representa- false. reliance GM’s interpret sought, ... a collective bar- tion Moore sold one home at a sacrifice and gaining agreement.... All suits for vio- payment lost her down on another. GM’s bargaining agree- lation of collective conduct application is not free from the law, governed by ments are be- state law. deeply States have a rooted Congress intended that the cause protecting interest their citizens from obligation labor contracts or af- and, fraudulent conduct unlike the federal fecting interstate commerce uniform. scheme, state remedies designed have been Publishing Newspa Wilkes-Barre Co. compensate for the kind of economicloss Wilkes-Barre,

per Guild Local by suffered Moore. (3d Cir.1981), denied, F.2d cert. I would hold GM answerable under state 71 L.Ed.2d brought tort law. An action (1982) (emphasis original) (citations understate law an redress loss caused employer’s representation false will Bargaining Agree The Collective not interfere with the effective administra- rights ment from which Moore’s transfer policy. tion of The doc- arise, requires that Moore resort preemption applicable trine of is not here. grievance procedures set forth in the would, I reverse. noted, As alleged compliance Moore has never procedures.

those Failure to exhaust the

grievance procedures collective bar

gaining agreement is a defense to a suit on agreement. collective Inc., Freight v. Anchor Motor

Hines 47 In re NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL (1976); Sipes, Vaca v. DISTRICT its Board of An 87 S.Ct. at 913. action for state Directors, Petitioners. common law claims will not be allowed No. 84-11830. against employer where the Appeals, United States Court proceed has failed to with the remedies Eighth Circuit. bargaining agree in the collective ment. preempted by fed

Moore’s action is Therefore,

eral law. we hold that the jurisdic-

court was without notes preemption. Supreme Court held that The conduct of GM which about Moore jurisdiction yield state must primary the complains compass is within the of activi- jurisdiction of the National Labor Relations ties that regulate. states “Even Board when arguably poten- conduct is or salutary the States’ pri- effort to redress tially subject to the National Labor Rela- wrongs grant compensation vate or Act, protected tions either activity under past harm regulate cannot be exerted to section practice 157 or an unfair labor un- potentially subject activities that are der section 158. If potentially conduct is regulatory exclusive federal scheme.” to the National Labor Relations Garmon, 247, 359 U.S. 79 S.Ct. at 780. Act, regulation precluded state is regard- Moore’s essentially arises from sought. less of the remedies employment contract between her and may fairly When it is clear or as- GM that was entered pursuant into to an sumed that the activities which a State agreement between GM and the Union. § purports regulate protected by are The conduct of inGM relation to a matter National the Labor Relations Act [29 arguably protected § 157], U.S.C. or constitute an unfair la- prohibited by sections 157 and 158. § § practice 158], bor U.S.C. [29 regard Garmon, due for the federal enactment As out in set there are requires exceptions state must preemption two to the federal yield. regu- (1) To leave the States free to merely doctrine:' conduct that pe plainly late conduct ripheral so within the central Management concern of the Labor § regulation Act, aim of federal involves too Relations seq., 29 U.S.C. 141 et and great danger (2) power of conflict between conduct that deeply touches- interests 573, (1935.). S.Rep. Cong., No. 1st 74th Sess. 15 GM, governed by federal and which is feeling responsibility. ion in local rooted law, falls with tort law. argues that GM’s conduct state argu exceptions. making in these subject matter of Moore’s amended ment, on three United States relies “merely peripheral” to the complaint is not Farmer, Supreme cases. Court of which this case arises. dispute out L.Ed.2d 97 S.Ct. controversy arises The entire nature Linn, L.Ed.2d U.S. gen- that was from transfer in which law cases state tort 582 are both Bargaining Agree- erally in the Collective the state’s found that Supreme Court ment, specifically, in the Memorandum the health and special protecting interest in Union preserving public safety of its citizens it was fail- GM. Moore’s GM’s sufficiently compelling to merit order was with due care ure to make preemption. exception from federal inseparable relationship be- confirms Bar- tween the transfer and preempt federal and The decision to gaining given jurisdiction over a class state court par depends on the nature of cases Sears, supra, reliance on is also Moore’s the ef being asserted and interest ticular misplaced. apply The Court decided not to judicial and administra fect concurrent Sears preemption doctrine in administration of remedies applied particular if situa- because Sipes, Vaca v. policies. tion, employer have denied been 17 L.Ed.2d litigate forum in which to access to has refus Supreme Court 206-07, disputed conduct. 436 U.S. apply preemption ed doctrine not the here. 1762-63. Such is case involving activity. tortious violent cases § . Manage 301 of the Labor Under Automobile International United Act, 185(a), un ment Relations 29 U.S.C. Russell, Workers

Case Details

Case Name: Betty Moore v. General Motors Corporation

Court Name: Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

Date Published: Aug 17, 1984

Citation: 739 F.2d 311

Docket Number: 83-1295

Court Abbreviation: 8th Cir.