Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
No. 96-1863
THERESA MARTIN,
Plaintiff, Appellant,
v.
____________________
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
____________________
Before
Lang, Xifara
____________
Betsy
_____
with
whom
Harold L. Lichten
___________________
and Ango
____
Goldman,
_______
Manning,
_______
Commercial
were on
Union 791
brief
for United
and National
Food
Employment Lawy
____________________
____________________
BOUDIN,
difficult
Theresa
Circuit Judge.
______________
preemption
Martin
issue,
sued
Massachusetts state
This
began
Shaw's
court for
employment-compensation laws.
case,
in
presenting
January
1996
Supermarkets,
alleged
Inc.,
violations of
when
in
state
since 1979, had injured her back in August 1994 while working
as
a bakery clerk.
workers'
In September 1994,
compensation
disability.
benefits
for
temporary
total
34.
Dr.
for
Martin.
restrictions and
Coleman
gave
Shaw's
list
of
physical
return to work
if
these restrictions
Martin
to
see
were
second
examination, Shaw's
respected.
doctor.
offered
Shaw's then
Based
Martin four
on
the
weeks of
asked
second
modified
restrictions.
attorney,
she
restrictions
offering
When
Martin
return to
again
set
Martin
asked
by Coleman.
her former
discussion failed
work.
for
Instead, through
position
Shaw's
responded by
position with
to resolve
fitting
her
the
again
no restrictions.
the matter,
Shaw's sent
-2-2-
terminated.
The
letter
referred to
Shaw's
"policy
and
On
October 19,
employment with
1995,
Martin reapplied
Shaw's, requesting
for
full-time
position with
duties
on her
alleging
that
Martin
had
been
unjustly
terminated
and
Three months
Massachusetts
her.
These sections
who lost
employee
refuse
her job as a
given rehiring
preference by
applicants, id.
___
to hire an
compensation
present action in
75A,
and that
claim, id.
___
75B(2).
must be
over non-
no employer
may
asserted a workers'
Martin's
suit did
not
In
court,
March 1996,
were
removed the
premising jurisdiction
moved to dismiss,
court
Shaw's
Fed. R.
Relations
by
Act, 29
section
U.S.C.
U.S.C.
Civ. P. 12(b)(6).
preempted
under 28
action to
agreeing that
301
185.
-3-3-
of
the
Martin
federal
1331,
The
and
district
Martin's claims
Labor
now
Management
appeals this
ruling.
The
sole issue
on appeal
is whether
section 301
only that
"[s]uits for
Section
violation
of
301 modestly
contracts
provides
between
an employer
any district
of the
parties . . . ."
begat substantive
. . . may
labor
be brought in
29 U.S.C.
authority.
and
185.
But jurisdiction
Mills, 353 U.S. 448, 451 (1957), the Supreme Court ruled that
_____
federal
law
for
the
bargaining agreements."
enforcement
of
fashion a body of
collective
In Teamsters v. Lucas Flour Co., 369 U.S. 95, 103 (1962), the
_________
_______________
Supreme Court
are
upon
"called
agreements, because
federal
doctrine,
principles.
that
to
enforce"
rather
than varying
suits
effect of
alleging
when courts
collective
"the pre-emptive
[state-law]
law is displaced
bargaining
be governed
state
by
contract-law
301 must
extend beyond
contract violations."
Allis______
____________________
1The
asserted
jurisdictional
basis
for
removal--
rule,
but where
section
301 preemption
is concerned,
the
Caterpillar
___________
-4-4-
Just how
far beyond
Allis-Chalmers
______________
relating
to the
preempted
handling
state-law
of a
precisely settled.
tort
claim
labor-agreement
closely
grievance.
seemingly
"require
of
whatever
construing
character--are
the
preempted
collective-bargaining
(1988).
Yet recently,
the
Supreme
if
they
agreement."
Court cautioned
that
law."
Nevertheless, Livadas
_______
by
Lingle--namely, that
______
claim wherever a
law
claim,
disputed
would
section
301
preempts a
be
provision of
required
to
the collective
state-law
interpret
plausibly
bargaining agreement.
Id.
___
At first blush,
both
bargaining agreements,
See
___
Courtney,
________
368 U.S.
502, 506
(1962).
The explanation
Court's concern to
contracts.
instance, the
Court believed
that
-5-5-
the arbitration
process
the
labor
agreement
process itself.
471 U.S. at
and
interference
with the
grievance
219.
Such
an arbitration clause is
present in
this case.
We thus begin
by asking, as we
Cir.
1995),
whether
resolution
of Martin's
past,
10-11 (1st
claims
would
require
an
interpretation
agreement.
Our
interpretive
dispute
Indeed,
refer
of
premise
is
and not
in
preempt.
passing
collective
that
this
merely
bargaining
means
a pretended
the agreement
will
has alleged
75A, 75B(2).
dispute.
need merely to
not
necessarily
violations of
Section
Mass. Gen.
75A creates
Laws ch.
priority for
rehiring:
Any
injury
lost a job
compensable
under
this
as a result
chapter
of an
shall be
real
____
Martin
152,
to
the
at the
persons not
time of compensable
at
the time
reemployment employed by
injury over
of application
such employer;
for
provided,
The
relevant
portion
of
section
75B(2)--a
conventional
. shall
. .
discriminate against
refuse to
hire
an employee
or in
because
any other
manner
the employee
has
-6-6-
exercised
right afforded
by this
[workers compensation]
chapter."
case.
But
inconsistent
with
an
also contain
applicable
collective
Shaw's
argues that
inconsistent with
this
both
the
of Martin's
labor agreement;
"inconsistency" charge
a proviso
Id.
___
is
bargaining
75A, 75B(3).
statutory claims
that resolution
requires interpretation
are
of
of the
It is
proviso,
very doubtful
Shaw's would
whether, without
have any
this last-quoted
plausible claim
of federal
preemption.
Massachusetts has
regulating
independent
of bargaining
an independent
interest in
agreement provisions.
be
There are
construing" test,2
but Shaw's
that Martin's
____________________
labor policy.
But
sometimes the
agreement.
E.g.,
____
Livadas;
_______
conflict
interpret a
-7-7-
of
by the
with
statutes depend
a labor
reading
agreement.
This court
being "inconsistent"
endorsed just
such a
(1st Cir.
1990).
And
The question
colorably
inconsistent
with
Martin's
labor agreement is
state-law
claims.
"management
right
. the right[] . . .
is
be
former
employee
agreement regulates
this
seeking
to
subject (but
rehired,
not
in a
to
that
the
way
that
agreed to management's
right to choose
which
Martin
responds
that
the "management
rights"
clause
because
agreement
priority
does give
rights to
former
by the agreement.
Shaw's employees
be rehired.
-8-8-
See
___
Yet the
some specific
Collective Bargaining
of lack of
work when
shall be offered
And
no other full-time
part-time work
the "management
rights"
work is
available
[if available] .
clause by
because
. .
.").
its terms
embraces
employee
handbook
decisions as to hiring.
Martin
next
guarantees
to her
established
by
language
that
contained
in
treats
this
protection
says
that
the very
section
is
section
75A,
priority right
against
right to
75A.
fairly
Shaw's
The
priority
handbook
close to
the
suggesting
(although
retaliation)
as
in rehiring
does
rehiring
that
contain
priority
Shaw's itself
not necessarily
consistent
with
the
its
"management rights"
the "management
clause.
But for
rights" clause,
purposes of construing
the handbook
is at
best a
gloss.
collective bargaining
agreement.
The
handbook
may
well
the
application
Shaw's
has
litigation.
To entertain
still require
a court to
precisely
what
a reference to
now
rethought
in
Martin's state-law
the
Court
of
claims would
Supreme
face
precedents
which is
forbid.
-9-9-
by
union
and
management
in
collective
S. Ct. at
bargaining
But Shaw's
preemption
claim
does
not
depend
protections; indeed,
it is
upon
statutes
would
of
"inconsistent"
with
statutory
Massachusetts law
can be "waived."
Cf.
___
themselves expressly
be
"waiver"
unclear under
Rather, the
withhold protection
labor
Mass.
agreements,
where it
without
We conclude
not
because
the
inconsistent with
may be so
___
collective
bargaining
This
is
agreement
is
__
but because it
We could
ourselves
other, but
been foreclosed in
As
logically,
remains
the question
all of this
why the
deference to
appears to
follow
outcome may
seem
faintly troubling.
One
making
reason
the
agreements,
legislature
is that
rights
may
Massachusetts'
conferred
be
yield
producing
statutory proviso,
to inconsistent
some
results
that
labor
the
-10-10-
in December
proviso
might
was necessary to
be
chagrined
to
avoid preemption;
_____
discover
that
debatable
inference,3
and
we
have
the legislature
the
proviso
has
found
no
helpful
legislative history.
than
mere inconsistency.
Or
a state court
clause.
of the proviso.
Despite
The
Shaw's,
merely
even for
an
retaliation.
allegation;
substance, it
would be
but
even
if
it
preempted because of
proved
of course,
to
have
the collective
____________________
3Shortly
Supreme
before
the
legislature acted
in
1985,
the
Court made clear that section 301 does not "give the
substantive
provisions
of private
agreements the
force of
federal
law,
ousting
any
inconsistent
v.
Massachusetts,
_____________
state regulation."
471 U.S.
724,
755-56
(1985)
-11-11-
bargaining
agreement,
provide no
remedy.
and
yet
the
agreement
may
itself
result in
but this
employee
agreement,
only
handbook is
__
a gloss
perhaps
the language
defeat the
on the
enforceable through
clause,
statutes.
Or,
may not
also give
the employer
perhaps
arbitration
"inconsistent" with
defense but
on the part of
arbitration.
If the
collective bargaining
already mentioned
"management rights"
this outcome.
the rights
relied upon by
Shaw's, is not
contingently secured
by the
If all
else
fails,
the union
its
labor
agreement.
agreement in 1994,
The
an explicit
All that
free
to
negotiate
parties
oversight.
is
entered
renews
the current
the
be an
preemption is
in the agreement
-12-12-
Finally, in a reply
appears as an amicus
preemption
non-union
that
union (which
They say
offer a
that a discharged
by allowing
extinguish
the
Martin's
discriminates against
thereby
collective
rights,
members or
offending federal
labor
bargaining
the
agreement
Massachusetts
former members
policy.
to
proviso
of unions,
This, they
say,
Livadas
_______
struck down
state
administrative
practice
compared
with
non-members,
114
S.
has nothing to
Ct.
at
2074-75,
do with section
301.
provide
that
rehiring
priority,
or
claim
against
not
members of
a union.
But
here Massachusetts
has done
union on
Instead, the
proviso in
and
in it,
either to
preserve or
displace another
regime
(specified provisions of
there
state law).
is no discrimination
Massachusetts
simply allows
Viewed in the
whatever against
the
union to
large,
union members;
negotiate for
-13-13-
different
package of benefits.
Affirmed.
________
-14-14-