PACKOWSKI v. UNITED FOOD AND COMMERCIAL WORKERS LOCAL 951
Case Details
- Citation
- 289 Mich. App. 132
- Judge(s)
- Before: BECKERING, P.J., and WILDER and DAVIS, JJ.; DAVIS, J., concurred.
- Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
- appeal
- State
- Michigan
Related Laws
No specific laws identified for this ruling.
Claim Types
Outcome
The court affirmed summary disposition in favor of the union, holding that the plaintiff's state-law wrongful-discharge claim based on the union's just-cause policy was preempted by the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (LMRDA) because allowing such claims would interfere with elected union officials' ability to implement their policies and jeopardize union democracy.
Excerpt
PACKOWSKI v UNITED FOOD AND COMMERCIAL WORKERS LOCAL 951 Docket No. 282419. Submitted June 1, 2009, at Grand Rapids. Decided July 8, 2010, at 9:00 a.m. Mark Packowski brought an action in the Kent Circuit Court against United Food and Commercial Workers Local 951, where he had worked as a business agent and organizer, claiming that he was wrongfully terminated in violation of Michigan public policy and the union’s policy requiring just cause for discharging employees. The court, Paul J. Sullivan, J., granted summary disposition under MCR 2.116(0(10) in favor of the union on Packowski’s claim that he was wrongfully discharged in violation of public policy. In a subsequent opinion and order, the court granted summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(4) in favor of the union on Packowski’s claim that he was wrongfully discharged in violation of the union’s just-cause policy, concluding that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction because the claim was preempted by the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (LMRDA), 29 USC 401 et seq. Packowski moved for reconsideration, which the court denied. Packowski appealed. The Court of Appeals held: There are three types of federal preemption: express preemption, conflict preemption, and field preemption. In this case, conflict preemption precluded Packowski’s claim that he was discharged in violation of the union’s just-cause policy. Under the doctrine of conflict preemption, federal law preempts state law to the extent that the state law conflicts with federal law or the purposes and objectives of Congress. One of the purposes of the LMRDA is to ensure union democracy. Wrongful-discharge claims brought by discharged union employees who were in policymaking or pohcy-implementing positions would undermine the LMRDA’s purpose and goal of protecting democratic processes in union leadership because such claims would infringe on the elected-union leadership’s ability to implement the policies on which they were elected. The circuit court correctly granted summary disposition in favor of the union under MCR 2.116(C)(4). Affirmed. BECKERING, EJ., dissenting, would have held that Fackowski’s wrongful-discharge claim was not preempted by the LMRDA and would vacate the circuit court’s orders granting summary disposition in favor of the union on that basis and denying Packowski’s motion for reconsideration. Enforcing a union’s just-cause policy does not conflict with the LMRDA’s objective of ensuring union democracy because it was the choice of the elected-union leadership to offer a just-cause employment contract. The majority’s contrary holding will permit unions to offer employment contracts with just-cause provisions that the employees have no ability to enforce in state court, rendering such provisions virtually meaningless. Actions — Employment Law — Wrongful Discharge — Just-Cause Requirement for Discharge from Employment — Federal Preemption — Conflict Preemption — Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act. Under the doctrine of conflict preemption, federal law preempts state law to the extent that the state law conflicts with the purposes and objectives of Congress; the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (LMRDA) preempts state-law wrongful-discharge claims brought by discharged union employees who were in policymaking or policy-implementing positions because those claims would undermine the LMRDA’s purpose of ensuring union democracy by infringing on the elected-union leadership’s ability to implement the policies on which they were elected (29 USC 401 et seq.). Farr Oosterhouse & Krissoff (by Joel E. Krissoff) for plaintiff. The Karmel Law Firm (by Jonathan D. Karmel) and Keller, Vincent & Almassian, PLC (by Michael D. Almassian), for defendant. Before: BECKERING, P.J., and WILDER and DAVIS, JJ. Wilder, J. Plaintiff, Mark Packowski, appeals by right the circuit court’s order granting summary disposition for defendant, United Food and Commercial Workers Local 951, under MCR 2.116(C)(4), and an order denying plaintiff s motion for reconsideration. Because we agree with the circuit court that federal preemption applies to plaintiffs remaining claim, we affirm. i Defendant employed plaintiff as a business agent and, later, as an organizer. In his complaint, plaintiff alleged that he was demoted from business agent to organizer in 1999 after he assisted in a federal Department of Labor investigation of defendant’s election activities. Plaintiff further alleged that he was treated differently and excluded from staff events, such as training, because he refused to contribute to defendant’s legal defense fund. Plaintiff alleged that, for these reasons, defendant subsequently terminated him against public policy. In an amended complaint, plaintiff also alleged that his termination violated defendant’s just-cause policy, which prohibited defendant from discharging employees except for just cause. The sole issue before us on appeal is plaintiffs claim that he was terminated without just cause. Plaintiffs complaint alleged that he had worked for defendant since 1995. According to the complaint, plaintiff took a medical leave from work from September 10, 2001, to September 14, 2001. Plaintiff alleged that he had returned to work for a half-day on September 14, but then a flareup of his health condition forced him to leave work. Defendant asserted below that it discharged plaintiff on September 27, 2001, for being absent from work without authorization. Defendant also asserted that it terminated plaintiff for falsifying records, including his daily itinerary and mileage records for September 14, 2001. Defendant admitted that it had an employment policy that employees, including plaintiff, could only be terminated for just cause, but defendant denied that its termination of plaintiff violated that policy. Defendant also had employment policies and standards that governed automobile use and business mileage reporting. The policies prohibited reimbursement for personal miles and required a monthly report specifying business and personal miles. The policies required accurate recordkeeping to ensure that defendant complied with the law. Departmental staff who had organizing duties, such as plaintiff, were also required to contact defendant by 9:00 a.m. every day to report their itineraries to a supervisor and to promptly contact a supervisor if any changes in itinerary occurred. Defendant argued below that on or about September 9, 2001, plaintiff informed defendant by a voicemail message of a flareup in his health condition, but he did not communicate with defendant again regarding his condition or his resulting inability to work until September 14, 2001, when he faxed a note from his doctor indicating that he would be absent from September 10 to September 14. Defendant asserted that plaintiff reported that he was going to work the second shift at the Wal-Mart store in St. John’s, Michigan, on September 14. Defendant later determined that plaintiff had not worked the full shift, because he left to referee a football game, and that plaintiff had failed to report a change in his itinerary. Defendant also asserted that plaintiff claimed that he had intended to stop at the Wal-Mart stores in Alma and Mt. Pleasant, Michigan, after the game, but had not informed defendant of this change in his itinerary, and, regardless, defendant contended that plaintiff went home after the game rather than to work as he had stated he would. Defendant farther maintained that plaintiff falsified his mileage report for September 14, 2001, by overstating his business miles. ii After plaintiff filed this action, defendant filed several motions for summary disposition. This appeal involves defendant’s summary disposition motion regarding plaintiffs cause of action for wrongful termination in violation of defendant’s just-cause policy. Defendant contended below that this claim was preempted by the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (LMRDA), 29 USC 401 et seq. Defendant argued that, under Finnegan v Leu, 456 US 431; 102 S Ct 1867; 72 L Ed 2d 239 (1982), the primary purpose of the LMRDA is to ensure union democracy. Thus, a union president, elected by the rank-and-file members, may terminate policymaking and policy-implementing employees without violating the LMRDA because the LMRDA does not restrict an elected union official’s freedom to choose staff whose views reflect his or her own (which would be the views on the basis of which he or she was elected). Further, defendant argued that courts from other jurisdictions, relying on Finnegan, have held that the LMRDA preempts state-law wrongful-discharge claims by policymaking and policy-implementing employees, because such claims would interfere with the elected union leader’s ability to implement the policy upon which the union members elected the leader. Defendant also argued that plaintiff claimed that he was terminated because he cooperated with the Department of Labor’s investigation of defendant’s election activities and that this claim directly implicated the LMRDA’s regulatory scheme because 29 USC 521(a) authorizes such an investigation and 29 USC 412 provides for a civil action in federal court if there is retaliation based on giving truthful testimony to the Department of Labor. Thus, defendant argued, plaintiffs exclusive remedy was to file a retaliation claim under the LMRDA in federal court, and his state-law claim interfered with and was preempted by federal law. In response, plaintiff argued that his claim was not preempted by the LMRDA, that the LMRDA did not prohibit defendant from adopting a policy barring termination without just cause, and that he was not a management-level employee to which the LMRDA and caselaw interpreting the LMRDA would apply. The circuit court granted defendant’s motion. The circuit court concluded that plaintiff was a policy-implementing employee of defendant and that, as such, his state-law wrongful-termination claim, to the extent that it relied on defendant’s just-cause policy, was preempted by the LMRDA because it would interfere with the union president’s authority to choose his own staff and would thereby jeopardize union democracy. The circuit court denied plaintiffs subsequent request for reconsideration, determining that plaintiff had merely reiterated the same arguments addressed in the summary disposition motion and clarifying that summary disposition of plaintiffs claim had been granted under the substantive-preemption doctrine, not the jurisdictional-preemption doctrine. III Plaintiff argues on appeal that the circuit court erred by granting defendant’s motion for summary disposition and by holding that his claim of wrongful discharge in violation of defendant’s just-cause policy was preempted by the LMRDA. We disagree. A We review de novo a circuit court’s summary disposition decision. Willett v Waterford Charter Twp, 271 Mich App 38, 45; 718 NW2d 386 (2006). Issues of law, such as federal preemption of state law, are reviewed de novo. Detroit v Ambassador Bridge Co, 481 Mich 29, 35; 748 NW2d 221 (2008). Whether a court has subject-matter jurisdiction is also an issue of law, reviewed de novo. Fisher v Belcher, 269 Mich App 247, 252-253; 713 NW2d 6 (2005). We review the circuit court’s denial of plaintiffs motion for reconsideration for an abuse of discretion. Churchman v Rickerson, 240 Mich App 223, 233; 611 NW2d 333 (2000). Defendant moved for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(4), (8), and (10). The circuit court decided the motion under subrule (C)(4). Summary disposition is appropriate when the trial court “lacks jurisdiction of the subject matter.” MCR 2.116(C)(4). For jurisdictional questions under MCR 2.116(C)(4), this Court “ ‘determine[s] whether the affidavits, together with the pleadings, depositions, admissions, and documentary evidence, demonstrate ... [a lack of] subject matter jurisdiction.’ ” L & L Wine & Liquor Corp v Liquor Control Comm, 274 Mich App 354, 356; 733 NW2d 107 (2007) (citations omitted). B The Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution gives Congress the authority to preempt state laws. Ambassador Bridge, 481 Mich at 35-36. The Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution provides: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall he made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. [US Const, art VI, cl 2 (emphasis added).] Under the Supremacy Clause, then, this Court is bound by federal statutes, despite any state law to the contrary. In other words, this Court is bound to find preemption when it exists because federal law is the supreme law of the land. See Ambassador Bridge, 481 Mich at 36. Whether a federal statute preempts a state-law claim is a question of federal law. Allis-Chalmers Corp v Lueck, 471 US 202, 214; 105 S Ct 1904; 85 L Ed 2d 206 (1985). When such questions of federal law are involved, we are bound to follow the prevailing opinions of the United States Supreme Court. Betty v Brooks & Perkins, 446 Mich 270, 276; 521 NW2d 518 (1994). If a state-law proceeding is preempted by federal law, the state court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction to hear the state-law cause of action. Ryan v Brunswick Corp, 454 Mich 20, 27; 557 NW2d 541 (1997), overruled in part on other grounds by Sprietsma v Mercury Marine, 537 US 51; 123 S Ct 518; 154 L Ed 2d 466 (2002). “Preemption occurs when a state law stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress.” Ambassador Bridge, 481 Mich at 36 (quotation marks and citation omitted). Preemption can also occur when a state or local regulation prevents a private entity from performing a function that Congress has tasked it with performing. Id. There are three types of federal preemption: express preemption, conflict preemption, and field preemption. X v Peterson, 240 Mich App 287, 289; 611 NW2d 566 (2000). Express preemption occurs when a federal statute clearly states an intent to preempt state law or that intent is implied in a federal law’s purpose and structure. Ryan, 454 Mich at 28. Under conflict preemption, a federal law preempts state law to the extent that the state law directly conflicts with federal law or with the purposes and objectives of Congress. Id., citing Cipollone v Liggett Group, Inc, 505 US 504, 516; 112 S Ct 2608; 120 L Ed 2d 407 (1992). Field preemption acts to preempt state law when federal law so thoroughly occupies a legislative field that it is reasonable to infer that Congress did not intend for states to supplement it. Ryan, 454 Mich at 28. A few of our sister states have considered analogous situations, and analogous state-law claims, and have found that the LMRDA conflict-preempted those claims. While we are not bound by those decisions, we may follow them if we find them persuasive. Mettler Walloon, LLC v Melrose Twp, 281 Mich App 184, 221 n 6; 761 NW2d 293 (2008). One closely analogous case is Screen Extras Guild, Inc v Superior Court, 51 Cal 3d 1017, 1024-1032; 275 Cal Rptr 395; 800 P2d 873 (1990), in which it was held that California common law, which implied a covenant of good faith and fair dealing in some employment relationships, conflicted with the LMRDA and was preempted. The plaintiff in Screen Extras was employed by the union as a business agent and was discharged for alleged dishonesty and insubordination. The plaintiff sued for wrongful discharge, among other claims, and alleged that the union breached a state-law covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Id. at 1027. Analyzing whether the plaintiffs state-law cause of action conflicted with the LMRDA’s policy, the court relied on Finnegan in holding that in order to ensure union democracy, “Congress must have intended that elected union officials would retain unrestricted freedom to select business agents, or, conversely, to discharge business agents with whom they felt unable to work or who were not in accord with their policies.” Id. at 1025 (emphasis added). The plaintiff in Screen Extras argued that her claims for wrongful discharge in breach of contract, negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress, and defamation were not preempted because she was terminated as a result of her alleged incompetence and dishonesty, not because of a policy disagreement with the union’s elected officials. Id. at 1027. The court found this distinction between a termination for policy reasons and a “garden-variety” termination not implicating policy unpersuasive because it was unworkable in the real world and involved highly subjective determinations. Id. at 1027-1028. “If a business agent, for example, were discharged for failing to efficiently adopt a new set of procedures for prioritizing routine tasks which had been endorsed by elected officials, should that be characterized as a termination to facilitate policy, or as a ‘garden-variety’ termination for inefficiency?” Id. at 1028. The court in Screen Extras noted that it would be impossible to develop an objective test to distinguish the two, and “every wrongful discharge claim brought against a union by a business agent will be cast in ‘garden-variety’ terms if that is all it takes to survive preemption.” Id. Relying on Finnegan, the court held that the plaintiffs claim was preempted because it conflicted with the LMRDA: To allow a state claim for wrongful discharge to proceed from the termination of a union business agent by elected union officials would interfere with the ability of such officials to implement the will of the union members they represent. This would frustrate full realization of the goal of union democracy embodied by the LMRDA, in contravention of the supremacy clause. Consequently, the LM-RDA and the supremacy clause preempt wrongful discharge claims brought against labor unions or their officials by former policymaking or confidential employees. lid. at 1031 (citations omitted).] See also Tyra v Kearney, 153 Cal App 3d 921, 925-927; 200 Cal Rptr 716 (1984) (relying on Finnegan, 456 US at 441, to hold that the plaintiffs claim for wrongful discharge, following termination from her position as a business agent for a union after she had run against the winning candidate, was preempted by the LMRDA’s purpose of ensuring democratically governed unions and union officials’ concomitant authority to select business agents). Also analogous is Vitullo v Int’l Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 206, 317 Mont 142; 75 P3d 1250 (2003), in which the plaintiff was a former assistant business manager for a union local. The business manager fired the plaintiff after the plaintiff had accepted a nomination to run against the business manager in the next union election. Id. at 144. The plaintiff brought a claim under Montana’s Wrongful Discharge From Employment Act, which created a just-cause-for-termination requirement and a probationary period. See Mont Code 39-2-901 et seq. The court held that the statutory claim conflicted with the LMRDA and Finnegan and was therefore conflict-preempted. Vitullo, 317 Mont 145-152. See also Smith v Int’l Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union 11, 109 Cal App 4th 1637, 1648; 1 Cal Rptr 3d 374 (2003) (holding that the plaintiff, a union organizer employee who was discharged and brought a breach of contract claim against the union, was a policymaking employee and that his breach-of-contract claim was preempted by the LMRDA). In another case finding preemption, Dzwonar v McDevitt, 348 NJ Super 164, 167; 791 A2d 1020 (2002), the plaintiff was discharged from her position as a union arbitration officer for inappropriate behavior at an arbitration proceeding and for involvement in disputes with other
Similar Rulings
Browse Related
Facing something similar at work?
Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.
This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.