McNealy v. Becnel et al, No. 2:2014cv02181 - Document 265 (E.D. La. 2016)

Court Description: ORDER AND REASONS granting 257 Motion for Reconsideration ; granting 258 Motion for Reconsideration as per herein. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs state law breach of contract and tort claims against Local Union and USW International are hereby DISMISSED as these claims are preempted by Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Local Union and USW Internationals motions to dismiss are GRANTED IN PART to the extent Local Union and USW International moved to dismiss Plaintiffs state law breach of contract and tort claims. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 11/17/2016. (cg)

Download PDF
McNealy v. Becnel et al Doc. 265 U N ITED S TATES D ISTRICT COU RT EASTERN D ISTRICT OF LOU ISIAN A N EW TON MCN EALY, Plain tiff CIVIL ACTION VERSU S N O. 14 -2 18 1 D ARRYL J. BECN EL, ET AL., D e fe n d an ts SECTION : “E” ( 2 ) ORD ER AN D REAS ON S Before the Court are two m otions for reconsideration of their m otions to dism iss filed by Defendants United Steel Workers Local Union, Local 750 (“Local Union”) 1 and United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial an d Service Workers International Union (“USW International”). 2 On October 17, 20 16, the Court issued its Order and Reasons 3 with respect to the Defendants’ eight dispositive m otions. 4 In its Order, the Court deferred ruling on Plaintiff’s state law claim s. 5 Following a status conference on October 28, 20 16, the Court issued an order allowing Local Union and USW International to file m otions to reconsider with respect to certain state law claim s they believe are preem pted by federal law. 6 Plaintiff Newton McNealy opposes these m otions for reconsideration. 7 Defendants Local Union and USW International argue the state law claim s against them for breach of contract and negligence are preem pted by Section 30 1 of the Labor 1 R. Doc. 257. R. Doc. 258 3 R. Doc. 237. 4 R. Docs. 117, 119, 121, 138, 146, 210 , 215, 216. 5 R. Doc. 237, at 39. On J uly 8, 20 16, the Court provided the parties with a chart specifying the claim s brought against each of the Defendants. R. Doc. 20 9-1. The Plaintiff brings state law claim s against Local Union and USW International under Louisiana Civil Code articles 190 6, 2315, 2316, 2320 , 3499 and Louisiana Revised Statutes section 9:38 0 1. See id. 6 R. Doc. 245. 7 R. Docs. 254, 255. 2 1 Dockets.Justia.com Managem ent Relations Act (LMRA). 8 Plaintiff argues his claim s for breach of contract and negligence are independent of any collective bargaining agreem ent and therefore not preem pted by the LMRA. 9 For the following reasons, Local Union and USW International’s m otions for reconsideration 10 are GRAN TED . LAW AN D AN ALYSIS Defendants Local Union and USW International argue the Plaintiff’s state law claim s for breach of contract and negligence are preem pted by Section 30 1 of the Labor Managem ent Relations Act. Section 30 1 provides: Suits for violation of contracts between an em ployer and a labor organization representing em ployees in an industry affecting com m erce as defined in this Act, or between any such labor organizations, m ay be brought in any district court of the United States having jurisdiction of the parties, without respect to the am ount in controversy or without regard to the citizenship of the parties. 11 Section 30 1 of the Labor Managem ent Relations Act is codified at 29 U.S.C. § 185 and has been recognized by the Suprem e Court of the United States as a “potent source of federal labor law.”12 Section 30 1 “provides the requisite jurisdiction an d exclusive rem edy for an individual em ployee covered by a collective-bargaining agreem ent between the individual’s em ployer and the union representing the em ployees, who asserts a violation of that agreem ent.” 13 “Generally, claim s that require the interpretation of a collective bargaining agreem ent are preem pted by the LMRA.”14 8 R. Doc. 257-1, at 3; R. Doc. 258-1, at 3. R. Doc. 254-1, at 4, 6; R. Doc. 255-1, at 4, 6. 10 R. Docs. 257, 258 . 11 29 U.S.C. § 185(a). 12 United Steelw orkers of Am ., AFL-CIO-CLC v. Raw son, 495 U.S. 362, 368 (1990 ). 13 Yavorsky v. Felice N avigation, Inc., 20 14 WL 5816999, at *2 (E.D. La. Nov. 7, 20 14) (citin g Thom as v. LTV Corp., 39 F.3d 611, 617 (5th Cir. 1995) (em phasis added). 14 Vilm a v. Goodell, 917 F. Supp. 2d 591, 595 (E.D. La. 20 13) (citations om itted). 9 2 As this district has explained, “Section 30 1 can preem pt causes of action arising in both contract an d tort, and such ‘preem ption occurs when a decision on the [other claim s] is inextricably intertwined with considerations of the term s of the labor contract or when the application of [other] law to a dispute requires interpretation of the collectivebargaining agreem ent.’”15 The Suprem e Court has further explained “Section 30 1 of the LMRA governs claim s founded directly on rights created by collective-bargaining agreem ents, and also claim s substantially dependent on the an alysis of a collective bargaining agreem ent.”16 I. Bre ach o f Co n tract Claim s Mr. McNealy alleges a claim for breach of contract under Louisiana Civil Code article 2320 . 17 As the Plaintiff explains in his opposition, “Plaintiff paid a fee to be a m em ber of the Union in exchange [for] receiv[ing] representation as a m em ber of the unit. The Union failed to fulfill its obligation to Mr. McNealy by refusing to address his job related concerns.” 18 Plaintiff argues he “has alleged a breach of contract [claim ] against the union defendant[s] which is independent of interpretation of any collective bargaining agreem ent.”19 As the Court explain ed in its October 17, 20 16 Order: [A]n em ployee’s cause of action against a union for breach of the duty of fair representation is im plied under Section 30 1. 20 “Because of the intricate relationship between the duty of fair represen tation and the enforcem ent of a collectively bargained contract, the two causes of action have becom e 15 Yavorsky , 20 14 WL 5816999, at *2 (citing Thom as, 39 F.3d at 616). Catepillar Inc. v . W illiam s, 48 U.S. 386, 387 (1987). 17 See R. Doc. 20 9-1, at 1. 18 R. Doc. 254-1, at 4; R. Doc. 255-1, at 4. 19 Id. 20 Id. (citing Vaca v. Sipes, 386 U.S. 171 (1967)). 16 3 ‘inextricably interdependent’ and known as a ‘hybrid § 30 1/ fair representation suit.’”21 In acknowledging the fee he paid in exchange for receiving representation, Plaintiff appears to concede the duty to represent arises out of the collective bargaining agreem ent between his em ployer and the union. It is clear Mr. McNealy’s claim requires interpretation of the CBA to determ ine whether the Union failed to represent him or represented him unfairly, or both. As the Suprem e Court has explained, “any state-law cause of action for violation of collective-bargaining agreem ents is entirely displaced by federal law under § 30 1.”22 As a result, Mr. McNealy’s state law claim s against Local Union and USW International for alleged breach of contract are preem pted by the LMRA. II. To rt Claim s Mr. McNealy alleges a claim for negligen ce under Louisiana Civil Code articles 2315 and 2316. 23 Mr. McNealy alleges Local Union and USW International were negligent in their failure to properly address his job related concerns. 24 Mr. McNealy alleges the Defendants’ negligence “qualifies as in dependent or separate [state] causes of action” and therefore these causes of action are not preem pted by the LMRA. 25 The Suprem e Court has explicitly “recognized that the preem ptive force of § 30 1 extends beyond state-law contract actions.”26 “A state-law tort action against an em ployer m ay be pre-em pted by § 30 1 if the duty to the em ployee of which the tort is a violation is 21 R. Doc. 237, at 9. Bache, 840 F.2d at 287– 8 8 (quoting DelCostello v. Int’l Brotherhood of Team sters, 462 U.S. 151, 164– 65 (1983)). “The interdependency arises from the nature of the collective bargain in g agreem ent. If the arbitration and grievance procedure is the exclusive and final rem edy for breach of the collective bargainin g agreem ent, the em ployee m ay not sue his em ployer under § 30 1 until he has exhausted the procedure. Further, he is bound by the procedure’s result unless he proves the union breached its duty of fair representation.” Daigle v. Gulf State Util. Co., 794 F.2d 974, 977 (5th Cir. 1986) (citations om itted). 22 United Steelw orkers of Am erica, AFL-CIO-CLC v . Raw son, 495 U.S. 362, 368 (1990 ). 23 See R. Doc. 20 9-1, at 1. 24 R. Doc. 254-1, at 6; R. Doc. 255-1, at 6. 25 See id. 26 Raw son, 495 U.S. at 369. 4 created by a collective bargaining agreem ent and without existence indepen dent of the agreem ent.”27 Any other result, “would ‘allow parties to evade the requirem ents of § 30 1 by relabeling their contract claim s as claim s for tortious breach of contract.’” 28 As explain ed in Raw son, the Suprem e Court “extended this rule of pre-em ption to a tort suit by an em ployee against her union in Electrical W orkers v. Hechler.” 29 When the resolution of the tort claim requires a court to ascertain, first, whether the collectivebargaining agreem ent in fact placed an im plied duty of care on the Union and second, the nature and scope of that duty, the tort claim is not sufficiently independent of the collective-bargaining agreem ent to withstand the preem ptive force of Section 30 1. 30 As explained above, Defendants Local Union and USW International’s duty to defend Mr. McNealy was a consequence of a collective bargaining agreem ent between the unions and Mr. McNealy’s em ployer. As a result, any tort action arisin g directly out of this relationship is preem pted by Section 30 1 of the LMRA. CON CLU SION For the foregoing reasons; IT IS ORD ERED that Local Union and USW International’s m otions for reconsideration 31 are GRAN TED . IT IS FU RTH ER ORD ERED that Plaintiff’s state law breach of contract and tort claim s against Local Union and USW International are hereby D ISMISSED as these claim s are preem pted by Section 30 1 of the Labor Managem ent Relations Act. 32 27 Id. Id. (quotin g Allis-Chalm ers Corp. v. Lueck, 471 U.S. 20 2, 211 (1985)). 29 Id. (referencin g Electrical W orkers v . Hechler, 481 U.S. 851 (1987)). 30 Id. 31 R. Docs. 257, 258 . 32 To the extent any other state claim s rem ain , the Court defers to exercise supplem ental jurisdiction . It appears, however, the rem ainin g state claim s are not causes of action: (1) La. Civ. Code art. 190 6 28 5 IT IS FU RTH ER ORD ERED that Local Union and USW International’s m otions to dism iss 33 are GRAN TED IN PART to the extent Local Union and USW International m oved to dism iss Plaintiff’s state law breach of contract and tort claim s. N e w Orle a n s , Lo u is ian a, th is 17th d ay o f N o ve m be r, 2 0 16 . ____________ _______ __________ SU SIE MORGAN U N ITED S TATES D ISTRICT J U D GE (defin ition of a contract); (2) La. Civ. Code. art. 3499 (statute establishing the prescriptive period for a personal action is ten years); (3) La. Rev. Stat. § 9:380 1 (definitions pertain in g to Uniform Fiduciaries Law). 33 R. Docs. 117, 118 , 215, 216. 6

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.