Pemberton v. Bethlehem Steel Corp.
502 A.2d 1101, 1986 Md. App. LEXIS 233, 66 Md. App. 133 (1986)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) does not preempt state tort claims when the controversy presented to the state court, such as personal injury arising from the tortious manner of the conduct, is different from the controversy that could be presented to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), which would focus on the underlying unfair labor practice.
Facts:
- Robert Pemberton was the business agent for the Industrial Union of Marine and Shipbuilding Workers of America, Local 24.
- In his capacity as business agent, Pemberton successfully pursued a grievance against his employer, Bethlehem Steel Corporation, for contracting out work to another company, MP Industries, Inc.
- Following the grievance, Bethlehem Steel and other defendants allegedly retaliated by placing Pemberton under surveillance.
- In June 1981, during Pemberton's union reelection campaign, documents concerning his 1967 criminal conviction, including a mug shot, were mailed to approximately 50 union members.
- On three occasions between August 1981 and January 1982, reports detailing Pemberton's alleged marital infidelity, which were gathered during the surveillance, were sent anonymously to his wife.
- The mailings to Pemberton's wife ultimately led to their divorce.
Procedural Posture:
- Robert Pemberton filed a lawsuit in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City (a state trial court) against Bethlehem Steel Corporation and its employees.
- The trial court dismissed Pemberton's claims for invasion of privacy and interference with marriage.
- The trial court then granted summary judgment in favor of 23 individual defendants.
- Pemberton filed a second amended declaration against the remaining and several new defendants.
- The trial court dismissed the entire case against all defendants, primarily on the grounds that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the claims were preempted by the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA).
- Pemberton (appellant) appealed the trial court's dismissal to the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland (an intermediate appellate court).
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 (NLRA) preempt state law tort claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress and invasion of privacy when the underlying conduct is arguably prohibited as an unfair labor practice?
Opinions:
Majority - Wilner, Judge
No, the NLRA does not preempt the state tort claims in this case. State jurisdiction over conduct that is arguably an unfair labor practice is permissible when the state court controversy is different from what the NLRB would address. The court reasoned that while the NLRB has exclusive jurisdiction over claims of unfair labor practices, exceptions exist for conduct that is a 'merely peripheral concern' of the NLRA or touches on interests 'so deeply rooted in local feeling and responsibility.' Citing Farmer v. Carpenters, the court distinguished between the NLRB's focus on whether the conduct constitutes an unfair labor practice (e.g., retaliation or union interference) and the state's interest in protecting citizens from the personal harm caused by tortious conduct. The critical inquiry, established in Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Carpenters, is whether the state controversy is identical to what the NLRB would decide. Here, the NLRB would be concerned with the anti-union motive, while the state claims focus on whether the manner of the conduct was sufficiently egregious to cause personal injury, a matter of peripheral concern to the NLRB. Therefore, the state court has jurisdiction. However, the court found that the claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress and invasion of privacy by publicity failed on their merits, but the claim for invasion of privacy by intrusion upon seclusion survived summary judgment due to evidence of a listening device being placed on a motel room door.
Analysis:
This decision reaffirms and clarifies the scope of the 'local feeling' exception to NLRA preemption established in San Diego Unions v. Garmon. It solidifies the principle that plaintiffs can pursue state tort remedies for personal injuries arising from a labor dispute, provided the state claim focuses on the outrageous manner of the conduct rather than the underlying labor issue itself. This creates a dual track for redress, allowing parties to seek damages for personal harm in state court—remedies unavailable from the NLRB—while the NLRB addresses the unfair labor practice. The case provides a crucial precedent for separating the legal analysis of the motive for an act (NLRB's purview) from the tortious nature of the act itself (the state court's purview), thereby preventing the NLRA from serving as a shield against liability for all tortious conduct in a labor context.
