Alaska Employment Law

A 9th Circuit opinion from this morning emphasizes how difficult it is for union members to avoid federal preemption of claims against their unions. 

Teamster union members at a Lucky’s warehouse in Fullerton, California, contended that their union and various union officials misled them into accepting a substandard union contract in retaliation for the members’ earlier acts defying the local officials.  The members pursued a variety of state and federal causes of actions, all of which the trial judge held were pre-empted.  The 9th Circuit has now affirmed the trial judge.

The appeals panel (per Judge Betty Fletcher) held that

*    the federal Duty of Fair Representation (i.e., Rawson) preempted the members’ state claims for breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, negligent misrepresentation, and IIED, because the members argued breach of the minimum federal duty, i.e., they didn’t contend that the union’s representational duties were enhanced by the CBA or a collateral contract;

*    LMRA § 301 (i.e., Lueck and Lingle) preempted the members’ state fraud and deceit claim, because the members argued that the CBA differed from the officials’ characterization of it, i.e., resolution of the members’ claim required judicial interpretation of the contract; and

*   NLRA §§ 7-9 (i.e., Garmon) “preempted” the RICO claims (when one federal statute displaces another, is “preemption” still the proper term?).  The panel’s disposition of the RICO claim appears to be one of first impression in this circuit.

The union members didn’t appeal the trial court’s holding that LMRA § 301 (Atkinson v. Sinclair Refining) exempts union agents from claims related to the CBA and bargaining process.

Adkins v. Mireles, 2008 WL 2066569 (9th Cir. May 16, 2008)