Employers Ass'n, Inc. v. United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO-CLC, AFL-CIO-CL

• Decision Date: 23 May 1994
• Docket Number: Nos. 92-3636,AFL-CIO-CL,D,92-3641,A,s. 92-3636
• Citation: 23 F.3d 214
• Parties: 146 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2509 EMPLOYERS ASSOCIATION, INC., for Itself and on Behalf of Its Member Employers, Appellee, v. UNITED STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA,ppellant, State of Minnesota, Intervenor. EMPLOYERS ASSOCIATION, INC., for Itself and on Behalf of Its Member Employers, Appellee, v. UNITED STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA,efendant, State of Minnesota, Intervenor/Appellant.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit

Page 214

23 F.3d 214

146 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2509

EMPLOYERS ASSOCIATION, INC., for Itself and on Behalf of Its Member Employers, Appellee, v. UNITED STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA, AFL-CIO-CLC, Appellant, State of Minnesota, Intervenor.

EMPLOYERS ASSOCIATION, INC., for Itself and on Behalf of Its Member Employers, Appellee, v. UNITED STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA, AFL-CIO-CLC, Defendant, State of Minnesota, Intervenor/Appellant.

Nos. 92-3636, 92-3641.

United States Court of Appeals Eighth Circuit.

Submitted April 29, 1994.

Decided May 23, 1994.

On Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota, James R. Rosenbaum, U.S.D.C., Judge.

Scott R. Strand (argued), St. Paul, MN (Michael J. Vanselow, John G. Engberg and Scott A. Higbe, on the briefs), for appellant.

Mark B. Rotenberg (argued), Minneapolis, MN (Michael J. Wahoske and James H. Curtin, on the briefs), for appellee.

Before RICHARD S. ARNOLD, Chief Judge, McMILLIAN and HANSEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

On March 18, 1994, we filed an opinion, 19 F.3d 405, in which a majority of this panel concurred, holding that the federal courts should abstain from reaching the merits of the preemption question presented on this appeal--whether the Minnesota Striker Replacement Act, Minn.Stat. Sec. 179.12(9), conflicts with the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. Secs. 151 et seq., and therefore must fall under the Supremacy Clause. At the time our opinion was filed, we believed that litigation was still pending in the Minnesota state courts that might clarify the meaning of the state statute, thus either changing or obviating altogether the preemption issue.

Unknown to us, the Supreme Court of Minnesota had in fact filed, on March 11, 1994, its opinion finally and authoritatively interpreting the state law. Counsel had notified this Court of the filing of the opinion of the Minnesota Supreme Court, but the information did not reach this panel until after our opinion had been filed. The assumption on which our opinion was based--that the question of how to interpret the state statute was still pending, and unresolved, in the state courts--was thus incorrect.

On our own motion, we therefore now vacate the panel opinion previously filed in this case, an opinion based on a mistake of fact, and substitute this opinion.

The Minnesota Supreme Court has now given an authoritative interpretation to the state law. It has held that the state statute in fact does purport to prohibit employers, during the course of an economic strike, from hiring permanent replacement workers. The Minnesota Supreme Court has not given the statute any kind of strained interpretation. The statute means simply what it says and attempts to make it an unfair labor practice under state law for employers to hire permanent replacements for striking employees. See Midwest Motor Express, Inc. v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America, Local 120, 512 N.W.2d 881 (Minn.1994). We therefore no longer have any occasion...