 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Union Pacific Railroad Co. v. Harding5/19/1998
on of the collective bargaining agreement. 512 U.S. at 260 (quoting Allis-Chalmers Corp. v. Lueck, 471 U.S. 202, 218 (1985) ) . "The distinguishing feature of a [minor dispute] is that the dispute may be conclusively resolved by interpreting the existing ." Consolidated Rail, 491 U.S. at 305; see also Magnuson v. Burlington Northern, Inc., 576 F.2d 1367, 1369-70 (9th Cir. 1978) (holding that a minor dispute exists and the RLA preempts state law where conduct at issue has a "'not obviously insubstantial' relationship to the labor contract"). Stated another way, the RLA preempts state law claims only where the claim is dependent on the interpretation of a collective bargaining agreement. Hawaiian Airlines, 512 U.S. at 261.
The Supreme Court has noted that the RLA preemption standard "is virtually identical to the pre-emption standard the Court employs in cases involving ยง 301 of the LMRA." Hawaiian Airlines., 512 U.S. at 260. In MGM Grand Hotel v. Insley, 102 Nev. 513, 518, 728 P.2d 821, 824 (1986), we stated:
Section 301 [of the LMRA] does not necessarily preempt every state law claim asserting a right that relates in some way to a provision in a collective bargaining agreement, or that relates more generally to the parties to such an agreement.
See also Lopez v. Continental Can Co., Inc., 961 F.2d 147, 149 (9th Cir. 1992). However, in Insley we also stated that: "A tort action brought in state court which would require the court to interpret the meaning or scope of a term in the employment contract would also be preempted." 102 Nev. at 517, 728 P.2d at 824.
In the case before us, we believe that preemption is appropriate. The application or interpretation of Rule 103 of the UPRR-UTU CBA is substantially involved in this case; if the language of the rule encompasses civil damages, it would appear that Rule 103 of the UPRR-UTU CBA conclusively resolves the matter. Therefore, we conclude that the district court properly dismissed UPRR's state law claims against Harding on the basis of RLA preemption. Because we affirm the district court's order on this ground, we need not reach the issue of FELA preemption.
CONCLUSION
We conclude that provisions of the UPRR-UTU CBA are substantially implicated by UPRR' s third-party complaint against Harding. Therefore, UPRR's third-party complaint constitutes a minor dispute under the RLA and must be resolved pursuant to the mandates of that federal statute. Because UPRR's state law claims were preempted by the RLA, the district court properly dismissed its complaint as to Harding.
SPRINGER, C.J.
SHEARING, J.
ROSE, J.
YOUNG, J.
MAUPIN, J.
Page 1 2 3 Nevada Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|