Simpkins v. Southwestern Idaho Painters Dist. Council No. 57, 27

• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Idaho
• Citation: 505 P.2d 313,95 Idaho 165
• Decision Date: 02 January 1973
• Docket Number: No. 27,D,No. 10738,27,10738
• Parties: , 82 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2870, 70 Lab.Cas. P 13,426 Ross SIMPKINS and Robert Scheuffele, dba R & R Carpet Service, a partnership, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. SOUTHWESTERN IDAHO PAINTERS DISTRICT COUNCIL NO. 57 and Thomas F. Payne, Business Manager of Southwestern Idaho Painters District Councilefendants-Respondents.

Page 313

505 P.2d 313 95 Idaho 165, 82 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2870, 70 Lab.Cas. P 13,426 Ross SIMPKINS and Robert Scheuffele, dba R & R Carpet Service, a partnership, Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
SOUTHWESTERN IDAHO PAINTERS DISTRICT COUNCIL NO. 57 and Thomas F. Payne, Business Manager of Southwestern Idaho Painters District Council No. 27, Defendants-Respondents. No. 10738. Supreme Court of Idaho. Jan. 2, 1973.
Rehearing Denied Feb. 1, 1973.

[95 Idaho 166]

Page 314

Eli A. Weston, Weston & Weston, Boise, for plaintiffs-appellants.

Wayne P. Fuller, Brauner, Fuller & Doolittle, Caldwell, for defendants-respondents.

McQUADE, Chief Justice.

This appeal requires us to examine the uncertain jurisdictional relationship between state courts and the National Labor Relations Board, in the context of an action for damages and injunctive relief from organizational picketing. To provide a framework for analyzing the jurisdictional issues, it is important to review current developments in the law of federal preemption.

I

The National Labor Relations Act, ¹ as amended, ² represents an effort by Congress to establish a uniform labor policy implemented by an expert administrative body. Sections 7 and 8 of the Act ³ seek to accommodate the competing interests of employers, employees, labor organizations and the public, by striking a balance among certain protected and prohibited activities. ⁴ Three landmark Supreme Court decisions secure the federal statutory scheme from intrusion by the states. In San Diego Guilding Trades Council v. [95 Idaho 167]

Page 315

Garmon, ⁵ Justice Frankfurter articulated a broad rule protecting the primary jurisdiction of the National Labor Relations Board: ⁶

'When an activity is arguably subject to § 7 or § 8 of the (National Labor Relations) Act, the States as well as the federal courts must defer to the exclusive competence of the National Labor Relations Board if the danger of state interference with national policy is to be averted.'

In Garner v. Teamsters Local 776, ⁷ the Court insulated §§ 7 and 8 from state attempts to expand or contract the substantive rights created by Congress. The Court held that a state is barred not only from applying local law in conflict with the federal statute, ⁸ but also from providing supplementary remedies for violations of federal law pending Board action. ⁹ Speaking through Justice Jackson the Court further indicated that the states might also be preempted from regulating activities not explicitly identified as protected or prohibited: ¹⁰

'For a state to impinge on the area of labor combat designed to be (left unregulated) is quite as much an obstruction of federal policy as if the state were to declare picketing free for purposes or by methods which the federal Act prohibits.'

The Court made this dictum a holding in Teamsters Local 20 v. Morton, ¹¹ where it disallowed a state award of damages to an employer for union appeals to customers or suppliers-in violation of state common law but not of the federal Act-to discontinue doing business with the employer. The union conduct was shielded from state regulation on the theory that Congress intended activities not governed by federal legislation to be 'free.' ¹²

However, the doctrine of federal preemption does not displace state jurisdiction over matters 'peripheral' to the regulation of labor relations or 'deeply rooted in local feeling and responsibility.' ¹³ Disputes[95 Idaho 168]

Page 316

between a union and its members are said to exemplify the former, ¹⁴ while violent or threatening conduct ¹⁵ and mass picketing ¹⁶ commonly illustrate the latter. The Supreme Court has also recognized state jurisdiction over actions to enforce collective bargaining agreements, ¹⁷ or for injunctive relief and damages from malicious libel, ¹⁸ even though the conduct in question arguably is subject to the federal Act. Congress has further provided concurrent state jurisdiction over certain types of union unfair labor practices, through § 303 of the Labor Management Relations Act. ¹⁹ Unless a case clearly falls within one of these exceptions, the Garmon rule of primary jurisdiction and Garner-Morton rules of substantive federal preemption are controlling. The jurisdictional issue raised by the facts of the case at bar must be analyzed within this framework. II

From the record it appears that appellants Simpkins and Scheuffele are partners in the carpet installation business. In 1968 they were engaged by Mrs. Lucille Taylor, an interior decorator, to lay carpet as part of a remodeling project at the Thunderbird Motel in Boise. Mr. Rex Barton, the motel manager who hired the services of Mrs. Taylor, previously had reached an oral agreement with District Council No. 57, a labor organization representing members of Local 477 of the respondent union for the purpose of collective bargaining, that union craftsmen would be employed on the remodeling project. When the appellants, who are not members of any union, began work at the motel, Mr. Thomas Payne, business representative for District Council No. 57, warned Mr. Barton and Mrs. Taylor that the project would be picketed. The following day a single picket peacefully patrolled the public sidewalk and driveway in front of the motel, carrying a sign which declared that the carpet layers on the jobsite were not parties to a prior floor covering agreement between District Council No. 57 and the motel management. Although a rear entrance to the motel was not picketed, and despite the reported absence of any threats or coercion, the union employees of other contractors on the project refused to enter the jobsite while the picket was posted. Apparently in response to pressure from Barton, Mrs. Taylor terminated the contract with appellants on the motel project.

Simpkins and Scheuffele promptly filed an action in the district court against Local 477, the International Union, Payne and others who may have participated in the picketing. In an amended complaint, [95 Idaho 169]

Page 317

appellants retained the named parties but added District Council No. 57 and Mr. Kenneth Stevenson, recording secretary and representative of the local and international unions, as parties defendant. The amended complaint prayed for compensatory and punitive damages on grounds that the picketing violated state and federal law, and that it unlawfully interfered with appellants' contractual relationship with Mrs. Taylor. Appellants also sought injunctive relief, but the apparent termination of picketing upon their departure, and subsequent completion of the remodeling project, have mooted that issue.

In the district court, the defendants moved to dismiss Kenneth Stevenson, Local 477 and the International Union as defendants because they had not authorized or participated in the picketing. Prior to judgment the court granted these motions, and no timely appeals were brought from the orders of dismissal. ²⁰ The remaining defendants, who are the respondents on appeal, moved dismissal of the entire complaint on the ground that exclusive jurisdiction over the subject matter rested in the National Labor Relations Board. After taking the motion under advisement and hearing the evidence without a jury, the district court ruled that the picketing arguably was covered by § 7 or § 8 of the National Labor Relations Act, bringing the case within the scope of Garmon and compelling a judgment of dismissal for lack of primary jurisdiction in the state court. On appeal from that judgment, appellants have assigned error to the court's finding that the picketing arguably was subject to § 7 or § 8 of the federal act, and to the court's failure to make findings on the alleged violations of state law.

III

Although appellants challenge the district court's finding that the activity in question arguably was governed by § 7 or § 8, they have made no attempt to demonstrate from an examination of the facts that the case clearly falls beyond the reach of those provisions. To the contrary, it would appear from the record that the district court properly identified the picketing as arguably subject to § 8(b)(4) ²¹ and [95 Idaho 170]

Page 318

other provisions of § 8. On this basis the Garmon rule would require that the state court defer to the primary jurisdiction of the National Labor Relations Board. However, appellants seek to escape the grasp of Garmon by arguing that they are not 'employees' as contemplated by the National Labor Relations Act; but that they are, as the district court found, independent contractors. ²² The record appears to indicate that appellants operate their own business for profit, contract with several firms, supply their own tools, and customarily receive payment according to the yardage of carpet laid. Persons who contract for their services do not make the standard deductions for social security or witholding of income tax; nor do they make contributions for workmen's compensation insurance. On the job in question it appears that Mrs. Taylor specified the carpet to be laid and the trim to be used, but did not supervise the details of installation. In light of these factors the district court's finding, that appellants are independent contractors, is consistent with prior state decisions. ²³ Moreover, because the tests for ascertaining status as employees or independent contractors derive from the common law, ²⁴ this determination requires no special administrative expertise that the district court did not possess. ²⁵ Consequently, for purposes of this appeal, we assume appellants' status as independent contractors to be fixed.

Designation of appellants as independent contractors may strip them of certain protections which the National Labor Relations Act extends particularly to 'employees.' ²⁶ Nevertheless, § 303 of the Labor Management Relations Act ²⁷ grants the right to an action for damages, in any court having jurisdiction of the parties, to anyone injured in his person or property by union...