Ryherd v. General Cable Co.

• Decision Date: 20 October 1988
• Docket Number: No. 64420,64420
• Citation: 124 Ill.2d 418,125 Ill.Dec. 273,530 N.E.2d 431
• Parties: , 125 Ill.Dec. 273, 131 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2238, 121 Lab.Cas. P 56,826, 4 IER Cases 596 Connie RYHERD, Appellant, v. GENERAL CABLE COMPANY, Appellee.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

Page 431

530 N.E.2d 431

124 Ill.2d 418, 125 Ill.Dec. 273, 131

L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2238,

121 Lab.Cas. P 56,826, 4 IER Cases 596

Connie RYHERD, Appellant, v. GENERAL CABLE COMPANY, Appellee.

No. 64420.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Oct. 20, 1988.

Rody P. Biggert, R. Taylor Abbot, Jr., Seyfarth, Shaw, Fairweather & Geraldson, Chicago, for appellee General Cable Co.

Kenneth E. Baughman, Monticello, for appellant.

Justice CLARK delivered the opinion of the court:

In Gonzalez v. Prestress Engineering Corp. (1986), 115 Ill.2d 1, 104 Ill.Dec. 751, 503 N.E.2d 308, we held that Federal law does not preempt an employee's claim that his employer tortiously discharged him in retaliation for the filing of a workers' compensation claim, even though the employee is covered by a collective-bargaining agreement and could have grieved his discharge to arbitration. The case at bar raises two questions: First, whether we should overrule Gonzalez, and, second, whether an employee who actually grieves his discharge claim to arbitration is thereby precluded from seeking to recover in court for retaliatory discharge. We answer both questions in the negative.

The appellant, Connie Ryherd, was employed by the appellee, General Cable Company. She sued the appellee for retaliatory discharge in the circuit court of Piatt County. The defendant moved for summary judgment on the retaliatory discharge claim, asserting that the claim was preempted by section 301 of the Federal Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA) (29 U.S.C. § 185(a) (1982)). The circuit court granted the motion for summary judgment, and the appellate court affirmed (151 Ill.App.3d 1, 105 Ill.Dec. 460, 504 N.E.2d 745). We granted the appellant's petition for leave to appeal (107 Ill.2d R. 315).

The appellant was hired by the appellee on August 16, 1978. Throughout her employment, the appellant was a member of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local No. 1993. The collective-bargaining agreement between the appellee and the union mandated a four-step grievance procedure for employees who had been disciplined or discharged. The final step in a dispute, under the agreement, was arbitration.

On March 5, 1981, the appellant suffered a work-related injury. She did not return to work until February 24, 1983. In the interim, she filed a workers' compensation claim and received a lump-sum settlement totalling $40,210. She also took a medical leave of absence beginning in April of 1983. In January of 1984, she was released to go back to work.

On February 2, 1984, however, the appellant was discharged. The official reasons given for her termination were "a lack of desire and physical inability to function as a full-time employee." Four days later, the appellant, through her union, filed a grievance. In the grievance, the appellant claimed that her discharge was motivated in part by her absences due to work-related injuries and in part because she had filed a workers' compensation claim.

The appellant's grievance was ultimately submitted to arbitration. At a hearing held before an arbitrator on August 17, 1984, the appellee introduced the following evidence about the appellant's employment history. On December 15, 1979, the appellant elected to take layoff, and she was recalled to work on February 11, 1980. She again elected to take layoff on May 5, 1980, and was recalled to work on February 22, 1981. On March 5, 1981, she suffered the work-related injury for which she filed her workers' compensation claim. She spent two years recuperating from this injury and did not return to work until February 24, 1983. On February 28, 1983, she suffered an allergic reaction. She then took a medical leave of absence until March 29, 1983. While on medical leave she was involved in a car accident and suffered a neck or whiplash injury. She nevertheless returned to work on March 29. She took several sick days in the first two weeks of April. On April 13, 1983, she took another medical leave of absence due to muscle strain, which aggravated her whiplash. She was released to go back to work in January of 1984 and terminated on February 2.

The appellee's contention during arbitration was that the appellant had been terminated for excessive absenteeism, apart from her leaves of absence for work-related injuries. The arbitrator agreed with the appellee. On November 2, 1984, he rendered his decision, concluding that the appellant was discharged "solely and wholly because of her absenteeism record" and that the appellee's action in terminating her was proper.

The appellant thereafter filed a three-count complaint against the appellee in the circuit court of Piatt County. Counts II and III were later dismissed upon motion of the appellant. Count I sounded in retaliatory discharge, alleging that the appellant had been terminated for filing a workers' compensation claim and subsequently obtaining a lump-sum settlement. On October 25, 1985, the appellee filed a motion for summary judgment, asserting that the appellant's State tort action was preempted by section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA) (29 U.S.C. § 185(a) (1982)).

The circuit court granted the motion. Relying on the United States Supreme Court's decision in Allis-Chalmers Corp. v. Lueck (1985), 471 U.S. 202, 213, 105 S.Ct. 1904, 1912, 85 L.Ed.2d 206, 216, the court ruled that the State tort action for retaliatory discharge was "inextricably intertwined with consideration of the terms of the labor contract." Accordingly, under the holding in Allis-Chalmers, the court found that the complaint was preempted by Federal labor law.

The appellate court affirmed, but on a far narrower ground. It found that the tort claim was preempted by Federal law, but only because the appellant had previously raised the retaliatory discharge claim as one of her grievances under the collective-bargaining agreement and had litigated it to arbitration. 151 Ill.App.3d at 15, 105 Ill.Dec. 460, 504 N.E.2d 745.

In the relatively short time since the appellate court rendered its decision, much water has passed under the bridge. Since that decision, our court has held that claims for retaliatory discharge are not generally preempted by Federal law, even where the employee claiming retaliatory discharge is covered by a collective-bargaining agreement, and even where the agreement both forbids discharges absent "just cause" and provides for arbitration. (Gonzalez v. Prestress Engineering Corp. (1986), 115 Ill.2d 1, 10, 104 Ill.Dec. 751, 503 N.E.2d 308.) The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit disagrees. It has held that such claims are preempted. (Lingle v. Norge Division of Magic Chef, Inc. (7th Cir.1987), 823 F.2d 1031, 1042-47 (en banc ), cert. granted (1987), 484 U.S. 895, 108 S.Ct. 226, 98 L.Ed.2d 185.) Since the retaliatory discharge claims in both Gonzalez and Lingle were based upon allegations that the employer had discharged the employee for filing a workers' compensation claim, the two cases are factually indistinguishable and doctrinally irreconcilable. If Gonzalez is right, Lingle is wrong, and if Lingle is right, Gonzalez is wrong.

State courts possess no more and no less competence than Federal courts in the interpretation of Federal law. It follows that we would not ordinarily reconsider our own interpretation of Federal law merely because a Federal intermediate appellate court happens to disagree. In this case we have reviewed Lingle, and we will not overrule Gonzalez. Two considerations, however, suggest that our decision to reject Lingle and follow Gonzalez should be fully explained. First, the Seventh Circuit's authority over the same geographic area as that which is subject to our own jurisdiction makes the conflict between its decision and our own vastly more acute. Second, the Seventh Circuit's decision appears to rest on an interpretation of our State common law that contradicts the interpretation adopted by this court.

We may begin with the points upon which this court and the Seventh Circuit agree. We agree that section 301 preemption, unlike other kinds of labor law preemption, has as its goal the creation of a uniform body of Federal labor law. (Local 174, Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America v. Lucas Flour Co. (1962), 369 U.S. 95, 103-04, 82 S.Ct. 571, 576-77, 7 L.Ed.2d 593, 599-600.) We also agree that "where the right to recovery depends upon an interpretation of a collective-bargaining agreement, section 301 requires Federal law to govern." (Lingle, 823 F.2d at 1042.) We further agree that a uniform Federal law as to the interpretation of collective-bargaining agreements is required because:

" 'The possibility that individual contract terms might have different meanings under state and federal law would inevitably exert a disruptive influence upon both the negotiation and administration of collective agreements. Because neither party could be certain of the rights which it had obtained or conceded, the process of negotiating an agreement would be made immeasurably more difficult by the necessity of trying to formulate contract provisions in such a way as to contain the same meaning under two or more systems of law which might someday be invoked in enforcing the contract. Once the collective bargain was made, the possibility of conflicting substantive interpretation under competing legal systems would tend to stimulate and prolong disputes as to its interpretation * * * '." Allis-Chalmers Corp. v. Lueck (1985), 471 U.S. 202, 210, 105 S.Ct. 1904, 1910-11, 85 L.Ed.2d 206, 214-15.

We also agree that section 301 preemption cannot be avoided merely by recasting a claim for breach of a collective-bargaining agreement as a State tort claim. The key point is not the label of tort or contract, but whether the validity of the State claim is "inextricably intertwined with consideration of the terms of the labor contract." (Allis-Chalmers Corp. v. Lueck (1985), 471 U.S....