Schnitzer Puerto Rico, Inc. v. Union Trabajadores de Muelles de Ponce, ILA Local 1903 et al, No. 3:2014cv01659 - Document 17 (D.P.R. 2014)

Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER: Granting 8 Motion to Remand to State Court; Denying 15 Motion requesting Order; Denying 15 Motion for Miscellaneous Relief. Signed by Judge Gustavo A. Gelpi (MET) Modified to add "Opinion and" on 10/20/2014 (su).

Download PDF

Schnitzer Puerto Rico, Inc. v. Union Trabajadores de Muelles de Ponce, ILA Local 1903 et al 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 Doc. 17 FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO 3 4 SCHNITZER PUERTO RICO INC,, 5 Plaintiff 6 v. 7 UNION DE TRABAJADORES DE 8 MUELLES DE PONCE, et al., 9 Defendants. CASE NO. 14-1659 (GAG) 10 OPINION AND ORDER 11 12 Schnitzer Puerto Rico, Inc., ( Plaintiff ), a corporation that processes and exports 13 recycled materials from Puerto Rico, carries out its exporting operations in the Port of Ponce in a 14 lot leased by the Municipality of Ponce. (Docket Nos. 8 & 9-1.) On July 28, 2014, a ship leased 15 by Plaintiff was scheduled to be loaded to transport materials. 16 operations were interrupted by a group of individuals, mainly stevedores represented by 17 Defendant International Longshoremen s Association, Local 1903 ( Local 1903 ), held a strike 18 in Plaintiff s lot at the Port of Ponce. Id. The protesters physically blocked Plaintiff s access to 19 the ship and entry to the pier, forcing Plaintiff s operations to a halt. Id. Id. However, Plaintiff s 20 To carry out its July 28 operations, Plaintiff did not sub contract stevedores; instead it 21 decided to use its own employees. (Docket Nos. 1 ¶6(F); 8; 9-1 ¶16.) None of the protesters 22 were Plaintiff s employees, nor had a contractual relationship with Plaintiff. (Docket No. 9-1 23 ¶16.) At that time, the protesters argued that Plaintiff had a legal obligation to contract a 24 Dockets.Justia.com Civil No. 14-1659 (GAG) 1 stevedoring agency and had a legal obligation to bargain collectively with them. (Docket No. 9- 2 1 ¶17.) 3 As a result of the strike, Plaintiff filed suit against Local 1903 before the Puerto Rico 4 Court of First Instance seeking injunctive relief and damages under state law. (See Docket No. 5 9-1.) The State Court granted a Temporary Restraining Order of Local 1903 s picket. (Docket 6 No. 8.) On August 29, 2014, Local 1903 filed a notice of removal before this court, pursuant to 7 28 U.S.C. § 1446, arguing the matter before State Court is preempted by federal law. (Docket 8 No. 1.) Namely, Local 1903 argues that Plaintiff s complaint masquerades an unfair labor 9 practice claim as established by the National Labor Relations Act ( NLRA ), 29 U.S.C. § 151 et 10 seq., which categorizes as a unfair labor practice when labor organizations picket employers with 11 the object of forcing or requiring an employer to recognize or bargain with a labor organization 12 as the representative of his employees, . . . . 29 U.S.C. § 158 (b)(7). (Docket No. 1.) To wit, 13 Local 1903 asserts that the jurisdiction lies in federal court to interpret whether Plaintiff had an 14 obligation to recognize and bargain with the union. If so, they argue, the NLRA preempts the 15 pending litigation before state court. Moreover, they contend that the present case should be 16 dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because the NLRA invests in the the National 17 Labor Relations Board ( NLRB ) exclusive primary jurisdiction over labor disputes. 18 On the other hand, Plaintiff avers that this case should be remanded to State Court due to 19 the fact that no labor relationship exists between the parties, and Plaintiff s employees do not 20 belong to Local 1903; hence, they were not obligated to bargain collectively. (Docket No. 8.) 21 Absent a labor relationship between the parties, Plaintiff correctly argues that this issue does not 22 fall within the scope of the NLRA. After reviewing the parties submissions and pertinent law, 23 Plaintiff s Motion for Remand to State Court is hereby GRANTED. 24 2 Civil No. 14-1659 (GAG) 1 The court finds that preemption is not warranted. As stated in Plaintiff s complaint, 2 Local 1903 picketers were not employed by Plaintiff. (Docket No. 9-1 ¶14.) Moreover, Plaintiff 3 did not sub contract stevedores to carry out their operations, and none of Plaintiff s employees 4 are members of Local 1903. Id. ¶ 17. Thus, Local 1903 s protest targeted Plaintiff s decision to 5 use its own employees, arguing they had an obligation under the NLRA to recognize them as a 6 union and bargain collectively. (Docket No. 1.) Plaintiff had no contractual relationship with 7 the protesters or a legal obligation created by the NLRA. Local 1903 cannot argue its acts 8 constitute a protected activity because they are not employed by Plaintiff. See NLRA § 151. 9 Furthermore, even if Local 1903 s actions were arguably protected, which they are not, 10 that would still be insufficient grounds for preemption. In Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. San Diego 11 County, 436 U.S. 180, 201-206 (1978), the Supreme Court entertained an issue almost identical 12 to the issue presently before the court. The Court held that it was not Congress intent to 13 preclude the interference of state law in all union matters when the issue that supposedly should 14 have been filed before the NLRB is different as to the one filed before the local forum. Sears, 15 Roebuck & Co. 436 U.S. at 198. Here, the only action that could have been taken before the 16 NLRB was a claim by Local 1903 for unfair labor practices against Plaintiff, which it is legally 17 precluded from doing absent a labor relationship as required by the NLRA. If that would have 18 been the case, the issues before both forums would have still been of different nature, i.e. 19 Plaintiff s trespass claims would be pending before the State Court, while Local 1903 s claim for 20 unfair labor practices by non-employer Plaintiff would rest in the hands of the NLRB. 21 As there is no labor relation between the parties, Local 1903 s actions do not constitute 22 protected activity as established by the NLRA. NLRA § 158. Absent any obligation from 23 Plaintiff to recognize or bargain with Local 1903, the July 28th picket was of trespassory nature, 24 3 Civil No. 14-1659 (GAG) 1 hence, outside the scope of the NLRA. As such, Plaintiff was not forced to turn to the NLRB 2 because it had no labor relationship with Local 1903. Consequently, the State Court is free to 3 adjudicate Plaintiff s trespass claim, without inferring with the NLRB s primary jurisdiction to 4 enforce unfair labor practices. Id. 5 Thus, this case is hereby REMANDED to State Court where proceedings may resume 6 without further delay. Furthermore, considering this court s lack of subject matter jurisdiction, 7 Plaintiff s request extension of the TRO is DENIED without prejudice. Plaintiff may promptly 8 renew its request before the State Court as it is the proper forum with jurisdiction over these 9 matters. Plaintiff shall immediately notify the State Court of this order. 10 11 SO ORDERED. In San Juan, Puerto Rico this 20th day of October, 2014. 12 s/ Gustavo A. GelpÃ 13 GUSTAVO A. GELPI 14 United States District Judge 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 4

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.