Sandor Radai v. First Transit ( 2012 )

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
_____________
No. 11-2560
_____________
SANDOR RADAI;
MICHAEL O'BRIEN,
Appellants
v.
FIRST TRANSIT; FIRSTGROUP AMERICA COMPANY;
FIRSTGROUP AMERICA; JOHN DOES (1-5).
_____________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of New Jersey
(D.C. No. 1-10-cv-06810)
District Judge: Hon. Joseph E. Irenas
_____________
Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a),
March 08, 2012
BEFORE: McKEE, Chief Judge, and SCIRICA, AMBRO, Circuit Judges
(Opinion Filed: April 30, 2012)
_____________
OPINION OF THE COURT
_____________
McKEE, Chief Judge.
Sandor Radai and Michael O’Brien appeal the District Court’s order dismissing
1
the claim they brought against the defendant/employer for wrongful termination. For the
reasons set forth below, we will affirm. 1
I.
As we write primarily for the parties, we need not discuss the factual background
or procedural history of this appeal.
First Transit argues that Radai and O’Brien’s claim is preempted by Sections 7
and 8 of the NLRA based on the Supreme Court’s decision in San Diego Building Trades
Council v. Garmon, 359 U.S. 236 (1959). The rule of Garmon—known as “Garmon
preemption”—precludes a claim where “it is clear or may fairly be assumed that the
activities which a State purports to regulate are protected by [§] 7 of the National Labor
Relations Act, or constitute an unfair labor practice under [§] 8.” Id. at 244. Section 7 of
the NLRA protects the right of employees to “self-organization, to form, join, or assist
labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing,
and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or
other mutual aid or protection.” 29 U.S.C. § 157. Similarly, Section 8 of the NLRA
prohibits labor practices that “interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise
of the rights guaranteed in section 7 . . . or discriminat[e] in regard to hire or tenure of
1
The District Court had jurisdiction over this action based on diversity of citizenship
subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. We have appellate jurisdiction
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
We exercise plenary review of a grant of a motion to dismiss. We therefore accept all
allegations in the Complaint as true and draw all reasonable inferences in the light most
favorable to the plaintiff. United States v. Occidental Chem. Corp., 200 F.3d 143 (3d Cir.
1999).
2
employment or any term or condition of employment to encourage or discourage
membership in any labor organization.” 29 U.S.C. § 158.
We have stated that “Garmon preemption protects the exclusive jurisdiction of the
NLRB over unfair labor practice proceedings; accordingly, if a cause of action implicated
protected concerted activity under Section 7 of the NLRA or conduct that would be
prohibited as an unfair labor practice under Section 8 of the NLRA, the cause of action is
preempted.” Voilas v. General Motors Corp., 170 F.3d 367, 378 (3d Cir. 1999). Radai
and O’Brien have alleged that they were involved in organizing a labor union and their
employers terminated them in order to discourage labor organization within the plant.
They attempt to dodge the Garmon bullet that is fatal to their claim by arguing that they
are seeking recovery for the employers’ breach of an implied contract, rather than
recovery for a wrongful termination claim under the NLRA.
However, their claim is nothing more than a rather transparent attempt to recast
the employer’s alleged anti-union activity in terms of contract law. Their efforts to seek
representation from a labor union and the allegations that the employers hindered that
activity fall squarely within the protections afforded by Sections 7 and 8 of the NLRA.
Because the claim relates to activity described in Sections 7 and 8 of the NLRA, the
claim is clearly preempted under Garmon. Thus, the District Court properly dismissed
the Complaint.
For the reasons stated above, we will affirm the judgment of the District Court.
3