Breininger v. Sheet Metal Worker International Association Local Union No. 6
107 L. Ed. 2d 388, 110 S. Ct. 424 (1989)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Federal courts have concurrent jurisdiction with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) over a union member's duty of fair representation claim arising from a union hiring hall's discriminatory job referrals. However, a union's ad hoc, discriminatory refusal to make job referrals does not constitute "discipline" under the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (LMRDA) unless it is a punishment authorized by the union as a collective entity to enforce its rules.
Facts:
- Lynn L. Breininger was a member of the Sheet Metal Workers International Association, Local Union No. 6.
- The union operated a non-exclusive hiring hall pursuant to a collective-bargaining agreement to refer members and nonmembers for construction jobs.
- The hiring hall maintained an 'out-of-work' list and was supposed to refer workers in order, unless an employer requested a specific person by name.
- Breininger alleged that the union's business manager and business agent refused to honor specific employer requests for his services.
- Breininger also alleged that these union officers passed him over when making general job referrals from the out-of-work list.
- He contended that these actions were taken as retaliation for his political opposition to the incumbent union leadership.
- Breininger further alleged that the union refused to process the internal grievances he filed regarding the matter.
Procedural Posture:
- Lynn L. Breininger filed a lawsuit against Local Union No. 6 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio.
- His complaint included two counts: (1) breach of the duty of fair representation, and (2) violation of the LMRDA for improper 'discipline'.
- The District Court dismissed the case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, ruling that the claims were within the exclusive jurisdiction of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB).
- Breininger, the appellant, appealed the dismissal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's decision, holding that the NLRB had exclusive jurisdiction and, alternatively, that the union's conduct did not constitute 'discipline' under the LMRDA.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted Breininger's petition 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:
First, does the National Labor Relations Board have exclusive jurisdiction over a union member's claim that his union breached its duty of fair representation by discriminating against him in job referrals through its hiring hall? Second, does a union's discriminatory refusal to refer a member for jobs constitute 'discipline' within the meaning of §§ 101(a)(5) and 609 of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Brennan
No to the first question, and no to the second. A federal court has jurisdiction to hear a duty of fair representation (DFR) claim even if the underlying conduct is also an unfair labor practice arguably within the NLRB's jurisdiction. The preemption doctrine established in Garmon does not apply to DFR suits, as held in Vaca v. Sipes, because the DFR is a judicially developed doctrine and federal court jurisdiction does not conflict with federal labor policy. This principle applies to claims arising from hiring halls, and a DFR suit against a union does not require a companion claim that the employer breached the collective bargaining agreement. However, the alleged refusal to refer Breininger for work does not constitute 'discipline' under the LMRDA. The statutory phrase 'otherwise discipline' refers only to punishment authorized by the union as a collective entity to enforce its rules, not to ad hoc retaliation by individual union officers. The LMRDA's procedural protections, such as written charges and a hearing, contemplate a formal, official process, which is inconsistent with personal vendettas or unofficial discrimination.
Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Justice Stevens
No to the first question, but yes to the second. The majority correctly holds that federal courts have jurisdiction over the duty of fair representation claim. However, the majority's interpretation of 'discipline' under the LMRDA is unjustifiably narrow and formalistic. 'Discipline' is punishment imposed by one in authority to correct deviant behavior. When union officers use their union-delegated authority over a hiring hall to deny a member work referrals as punishment for political dissent, they are imposing discipline. The LMRDA was intended to protect rank-and-file members from such abuses of power, and excluding informal but powerful sanctions like withholding job referrals from the Act's scope perversely deprives members of procedural protections when they are most needed.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the principle from Vaca v. Sipes that federal courts retain jurisdiction over duty of fair representation (DFR) claims, preventing an exception for cases involving union hiring halls and ensuring members have a judicial forum for such grievances. Concurrently, the case narrows the scope of the LMRDA's 'Bill of Rights' by defining 'discipline' as a formal, official act of the union as an entity. This interpretation makes it more difficult for union members to seek redress under the LMRDA for informal retaliation or personal vendettas by union officers, forcing them to rely on the potentially more complex DFR claim for such wrongs.
Unlock the full brief for Breininger v. Sheet Metal Worker International Association Local Union No. 6