Belknap, Inc. v. Hale et al.
463 U.S. 491 (1983)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) does not pre-empt state-law breach of contract and misrepresentation claims brought by replacement workers who were promised permanent employment but were later discharged as part of a settlement agreement with a striking union.
Facts:
- Belknap, Inc. and the International Brotherhood of Teamsters Local No. 89 reached an impasse in negotiations for a new collective bargaining agreement.
- On February 1, 1978, approximately 400 of Belknap's employees went on strike.
- Belknap placed a newspaper advertisement seeking applicants to 'permanently replace striking warehouse and maintenance employees.'
- Belknap hired numerous replacement workers, including the respondents, and had each sign a statement acknowledging they were employed as a 'regular full time permanent replacement.'
- On April 4, 1978, Belknap distributed a letter to the replacements stating it had 'no intention of getting rid of the permanent replacement employees' to provide jobs for strikers.
- On April 27, 1978, Belknap again assured the replacements in writing that there would be 'no change in your employment status.'
- Belknap and the Union subsequently reached a settlement agreement which included a provision for the reinstatement of the striking workers.
- To comply with the settlement, Belknap laid off the replacement workers, including the respondents, to make room for the returning strikers.
Procedural Posture:
- Displaced replacement workers (respondents) sued Belknap, Inc. in the Jefferson County Circuit Court in Kentucky, a state trial court, alleging misrepresentation and breach of contract.
- Belknap unsuccessfully sought to remove the case to federal court.
- Belknap then moved for summary judgment in the state trial court, arguing that the state-law claims were pre-empted by the NLRA.
- The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Belknap.
- The respondents appealed to the Kentucky Court of Appeals, an intermediate appellate court.
- The Kentucky Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's judgment, holding that the claims were not pre-empted.
- The Kentucky Supreme Court, the state's highest court, granted discretionary review but later vacated its order as improvidently entered.
- Belknap, the petitioner, successfully petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the National Labor Relations Act pre-empt a state-law misrepresentation and breach-of-contract action brought against an employer by strike replacements who were promised permanent employment but subsequently discharged to accommodate returning strikers?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice White
No, the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) does not pre-empt state-law actions for misrepresentation and breach of contract brought by strike replacements who were promised permanent employment but later discharged to make way for returning strikers. The Court found that neither of the two major NLRA pre-emption doctrines bars these state claims. First, under the Machinists doctrine, which protects the 'free play of economic forces,' the Court reasoned that an employer's right to hire permanent replacements does not grant it the freedom to injure innocent third parties through actionable misrepresentations or breaches of contract without consequence. Second, under the Garmon doctrine, which pre-empts state regulation of conduct arguably protected or prohibited by the NLRA, the state-law claims fall within the exceptions for matters of 'merely peripheral concern' to federal law and those 'deeply rooted in local feeling and responsibility.' The controversy before the state court (whether Belknap deceived replacements) is not identical to the controversy the NLRB would adjudicate (whether Belknap infringed upon the rights of strikers). The state has a substantial interest in protecting its citizens from such harm, and these actions do not interfere with the NLRB's jurisdiction.
Dissenting - Justice Brennan
Yes, the NLRA pre-empts these state-law claims because they go to the core of federal labor policy. The breach-of-contract claim is pre-empted because Belknap's action of discharging replacements was arguably required by federal law, as the strike was arguably an unfair labor practice strike, which would mandate the reinstatement of strikers. Allowing a state to penalize conduct arguably required by federal law creates an intolerable conflict and would deter employers from settling strikes, frustrating a key federal policy. The misrepresentation claim is pre-empted under the Machinists doctrine because it burdens a key economic weapon of the employer—the right to hire permanent replacements. The threat of state-law liability will inhibit employers from making such offers, thereby altering the 'delicate balance of power between labor and management expressed in our national labor policy.'
Concurrence - Justice Blackmun
No, the respondents' state-law causes of action are not pre-empted. While I agree with the judgment, the majority errs by creating a new, conditional definition of 'permanent employment' under federal law, rather than deferring to the NLRB's reasonable interpretation. However, pre-emption is inappropriate because the very purpose of allowing employers to promise permanent employment is to make those promises credible to attract replacements. If the promises are unenforceable under state law, the employer's economic weapon is weakened. Therefore, state-law enforcement of these promises through damages actions is consistent with the federal purpose. The potential liability does not improperly alter the 'free play of economic forces' under Machinists because it concerns obligations to third parties, not merely the conflict between the employer and the union.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the limits of federal labor law pre-emption by preserving state-law remedies for third parties, like replacement workers, who are harmed by actions taken during a labor dispute. It establishes that an employer's use of economic weapons under the NLRA does not create an immunity from ordinary state contract and tort law liability to individuals outside the direct employer-union conflict. The ruling forces employers to be more cautious when hiring replacements, as unconditional promises of 'permanent' employment can lead to significant state-law liability if the employer later settles the strike by reinstating strikers. This creates a practical dilemma for employers, who must balance the need to attract replacements with the risk of future lawsuits.
