General Motors Corp., In re

• Decision Date: 01 September 1993
• Docket Number: No. 92-2017,92-2017
• Citation: 3 F.3d 980
• Parties: 144 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2145, 126 Lab.Cas. P 10,841, 8 Indiv.Empl.Rts.Cas. 1373, 17 Employee Benefits Ca 1001 In re GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION; William Acton, Petitioners.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit

Page 980

3 F.3d 980

144 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2145, 126 Lab.Cas. P 10,841,

8 Indiv.Empl.Rts.Cas. 1373,

17 Employee Benefits Ca 1001

In re GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION; William Acton, Petitioners.

No. 92-2017.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

Argued Jan. 20, 1993.

Decided Sept. 1, 1993.

Deborah A. Syx (argued), Michael J. Connolly, Cross & Wrock, Alice M. Osburn, General Motors Corp., Detroit, MI, for petitioners.

Geno D. Salomone (argued), Riverview, MI, for plaintiff-respondent.

Before: KENNEDY and BATCHELDER, Circuit Judges; and ENGEL, Senior Circuit Judge.

ENGEL, Senior Circuit Judge.

Petitioners, defendants below, are before the court for the second time seeking a writ of mandamus directing the district court to stay an order of remand and to grant their motion for summary judgment. By order entered September 14, 1992, the court stayed the remand order pending consideration of the petition. Plaintiff opposes the petition for a writ of mandamus.

I

Plaintiff below, Daniel S. Duffey, is an employee of defendant General Motors Corporation ("GM"). GM and Duffey's union, the United Autoworkers ("UAW"), jointly administer an Employee Assistance Program ("EAP"), which provides counseling and related services for employees with problems such as those stemming from drug and alcohol abuse. The documents describing the program, which are referred to in the collective bargaining agreement, provide that employees' utilization of the EAP will remain confidential. Nonetheless, when Duffey filed a grievance protesting his discharge, ¹ allegations concerning his earlier participation in the EAP began to surface.

Duffey filed an action in state court against GM and William Acton, an EAP administrator, seeking damages under theories of breach of contract, invasion of privacy, misrepresentation, and violation of 42 U.S.C. Secs. 290dd-3 and 290ee-3, which mandate confidentiality of patient records. The defendants removed the case to federal court on the ground that the count brought under section 290 stated a federal question and that the remaining counts were preempted by section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. Sec. 185 ("LMRA"). Once in federal court, the defendants moved for summary judgment on these grounds.

The district court dismissed the count brought under section 290 on the grounds that the statute did not provide a private right of action. The court then ruled that, since the EAP did not constitute a "contract" for purposes of section 301, the remaining claims were not preempted by the LMRA, which preempts only those claims alleging violation of contracts between unions and employers. Believing that he no longer had jurisdiction, the district judge remanded the remaining claims to state court.

The defendants then filed their first petition for a writ of mandamus, seeking to stay the district court's order of remand on the ground that Duffey's remaining claims were preempted. This court granted that petition on December 23, 1991. In re General Motors Corp., No. 91-1992 (6th Cir. Dec. 23, 1991) (GM I ). This court ruled that the EAP was a "contract" for purposes of section 301. The question of whether Duffey's claims alleged violations of the EAP, however, or whether Duffey's claims could instead be resolved without reference to the EAP, was not properly before the court. Accordingly, the court ordered the district court to reconsider its holding that Duffey's claims did not allege violations of a contract governed by section 301.

This court's order was unfortunately less than clear, and, on remand, the district court misconstrued it. Specifically, the court failed to interpret the order as requiring it to consider that the EAP was a contract for purposes of section 301. Instead, the court interpreted the order as requiring it to reconsider whether the EAP was a section 301 contract. Upon reconsideration, the district court stood by its earlier finding that the state law claims were not preempted by section 301 of the LMRA. The court further held that the claims were not preempted by section 514 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"), 29 U.S.C. Sec. 1144. Therefore, the district court once again remanded the state law claims to state court. Defendants then filed this second petition for a writ of mandamus.

The court directed responses to the petition under Rule 21(b), Fed.R.App.P. Plaintiff responded in opposition to the petition. Upon review, we conclude that we must once again grant the petition for a writ of mandamus.

II

A

Although neither party has raised the issue, we consider sua sponte whether this court has jurisdiction to review the district court's order of remand. See Baldridge v Kentucky-Ohio Transportation, Inc., 983 F.2d 1341, 1343 (6th Cir.1993). We undertake analysis of this question in two steps: First, we address the question of whether this court had jurisdiction to issue the writ of mandamus in GM I. Having done so, we analyze the jurisdictional basis of the writ that petitioners now seek.

1. GM I

28 U.S.C. Sec. 1447(d) appears to prohibit courts of appeal from reviewing decisions of lower courts remanding actions to state courts. In Thermtron Products, Inc. v. Hermansdorfer, 423 U.S. 336, 96 S.Ct. 584, 46 L.Ed.2d 542 (1976), however, the Supreme Court announced that the bar to review set forth in section 1447(d) applies only to remand orders issued pursuant to section 1447(c). That section provides that cases "removed improvidently and without jurisdiction" must be remanded. See generally Ohio v. Wright, 992 F.2d 616 (6th Cir.1993) (en banc ).

In this case, the district court remanded because the federal statutes upon which the plaintiff relied in part, 42 U.S.C. Secs. 290dd-3 & 290ee-3, provided no private right of action. Under Bell v. Hood, 327 U.S. 678, 66 S.Ct. 773, 90 L.Ed. 939 (1945), federal courts have jurisdiction to decide whether a federal statute provides a private right of action. Thus, this case was not improvidently removed for want of jurisdiction; under the district court's analysis, the court had jurisdiction until it dismissed the claims brought under section 290. See Baldridge, 983 F.2d at 1349. The district court's original order of remand was therefore not issued pursuant to section 1447(c), and this court had jurisdiction to review that order.

2. GM II

Having resolved the question of whether this court had jurisdiction to issue the original writ of mandamus, we turn to the relatively more straightforward question of whether we have jurisdiction to issue the writ for which petitioners now pray. We conclude that we do. Our jurisdiction is premised, as it was in GM I, on the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1651(a). Under that act, the courts of appeals have the authority to, inter alia, issue writs of mandamus to district courts to ensure compliance with earlier mandates. U.S. v. Cannon (In re U.S.), 807 F.2d 1528, 1529 (11th Cir.1987); Oswald v. McGarr, (In re General Motors Corp. Engine Interchange Litigation ), 620 F.2d 1190, 1195-96 (7th Cir.1980). Cf. In re Allied-Signal, Inc., 915 F.2d 190, 192-93 (6th Cir.1990) (recognizing authority but declining to issue writ).

GM premises its current request for a writ of mandamus on its contention that the district court failed to abide by the writ that this court issued in GM I. We find this contention to be well-founded. Accordingly, and pursuant to our authority to ensure compliance with our mandates, we conclude that this court has jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus.

B

Section 301(a) of the LMRA provides for federal jurisdiction of "[s]uits for violations of contracts between an employer and a labor organization representing employees...." The Supreme Court has interpreted this statute to require federal preemption of state law claims arising under section 301. Textile Workers Union v. Lincoln Mills, 353 U.S. 448, 77 S.Ct. 912, 1 L.Ed.2d 972 (1957).

The term "contract" as used in section 301 of the LMRA is not limited to collective bargaining agreements, but can embrace understandings other than those usually understood as collective bargaining agreements. Stevens v. Employer-Teamsters Joint Council No. 84 Pension Fund, 979 F.2d 444, 457 (6th Cir.1992); Apponi v. Sunshine Biscuits, Inc., 809 F.2d 1210, 1215 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 820, 108 S.Ct. 77, 98 L.Ed.2d 40 (1987). The term can extend to collectively-bargained pension plans and other employee benefits agreements. Id. This rule applies regardless of whether the controversy was or was not subject to normal grievance procedures spelled out in the collective bargaining agreement itself.

Upon review, we conclude once again that the GM/UAW EAP is a section 301 contract between an employer and a labor organization. Accordingly, we order the district court to stay its order of remand and to analyze Duffey's claims in light of our holding. ²

C

Because this is the second time petitioners are before this court seeking a writ of mandamus, we feel compelled to provide the district court with some further direction on a number of issues that are sure to arise.

1. LMRA

In light of our holding that the EAP constitutes a contract for purposes of section 301, the question presents itself whether Duffey's remaining claims for breach of contract, invasion of privacy and misrepresentation arise out of a violation of the EAP. We hold that they do, and that they are therefore preempted by section 301.

Section 301 preempts claims that are "inextricably intertwined with consideration of the terms" of a collectively-bargained labor contract, Allis-Chalmers Corp. v. Lueck, 471 U.S. 202, 213, 105 S.Ct. 1904, 1912, 85 L.Ed.2d 206 (1985), or that are "substantially dependant on analysis of a collective-bargaining agreement," Electrical Workers v. Hechler, 481 U.S. 851, 859 n. 3, 107 S.Ct. 2161, 2167 n. 3, 95 L.Ed.2d 791 (1987). Duffey's claims allege violations of the EAP. Furthermore, his claims arise...