Vitullo v. INTERNATIONAL BROTH. OF ELEC. WORKERS, 01-784.

• Decision Date: 25 August 2003
• Docket Number: No. 01-784.,01-784.
• Parties: Charles J. VITULLO, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, LOCAL 206, a union, Defendant and Respondent.
• Court: Montana Supreme Court

75 P.3d 1250

2003 MT 219

Charles J. VITULLO, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, LOCAL 206, a union, Defendant and Respondent.

No. 01-784.

Supreme Court of Montana.

Submitted on Briefs February 21, 2002.

Decided August 25, 2003.

For Appellant: Antonia P. Marra, Bell & Marra, Great Falls, Montana.

For Respondent: D. Patrick McKittrick, McKittrick Law Firm, Great Falls, Montana.

Justice JIM RICE delivered the Opinion of the Court.

¶ 1 The Appellant, Charles J. Vitullo (Vitullo), brought this action in the Montana First Judicial District Court, Lewis and Clark County, seeking compensatory and punitive damages for wrongful discharge from employment by the Respondent, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 206 (IBEW), in violation of § 39-2-904(1)(3), MCA (1999). The District Court granted summary judgment in favor of IBEW, concluding that the Montana Wrongful Discharge From Employment Act, § 39-2-901 et seq., MCA, was preempted by the Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959 (LMRDA), 29 U.S.C. § 401 et seq. From this judgment Vitullo now appeals. We affirm.

¶ 2 Vitullo raises the following issue on appeal:

¶ 3 Did the District Court err when it concluded that the LMRDA preempted Vitullo's state law claims under the Montana Wrongful Discharge From Employment Act?

BACKGROUND

¶ 4 Prior to his termination, Vitullo was employed by and was a member of Local 206, IBEW, in the position of assistant business manager and organizer. In approximately 1992, Clark Spranget, the union's elected business manager, hired Vitullo, who was at the time working for U.S. West as a fiber optic cable layer, as the assistant business manager and later included the responsibilities of organizer. Vitullo worked for Spranget for approximately seven years until his employment was terminated on April 2, 1999.

¶ 5 In approximately March of 1999, Vitullo told Spranget that he (Vitullo) had been asked to accept the nomination for election to Spranget's current position, that of business manager for Local 206. Soon thereafter, Spranget advised Vitullo that his decision to run for the position of business manager, while serving in the capacity of assistant business manager, was a conflict of interest. Spranget advised Vitullo that if Vitullo did run for the position of business manager, his employment as the assistant business manager and organizer would be terminated.

¶ 6 On April 1, 1999, Vitullo, as well as several other union members, accepted nominations to run for the business manager position against Spranget. Spranget then terminated the employment of Vitullo from Local 206. After his termination, Vitullo filed a complaint with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). The NLRB advised Vitullo that, under the circumstances, he did not have a case and would be better off dropping it. Vitullo thereafter dropped the charges and filed the instant action.

¶ 7 In granting summary judgment in favor of IBEW, the District Court determined that Vitullo had no recourse for his firing under the Montana Wrongful Discharge From Employment Act because IBEW's constitution gives the business manager authority to hire and fire assistants at any time, specifically providing that appointed officials shall not work in conflict with the business manager. In making this determination, the District Court concluded that the hiring and firing provisions of IBEW's constitution preempted the Montana Wrongful Discharge From Employment Act, as the overriding purpose of the LMRDA is to ensure that unions would be democratically governed and responsive to the will of the membership, and the ability of an elected official to choose a staff whose views are compatible with his or her own is necessary and integral to protecting this democratic process.

¶ 8 From this judgment, Vitullo now appeals.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

¶ 9 The standard of review for summary judgment is de novo. This Court will apply the same evaluation as the district court based upon Rule 56, M.R.Civ.P. Appellant here challenges the District Court's conclusion of law. Our standard of review of a question of law is whether the legal conclusions of the trial court are correct. Gonzales v. Walchuk, 2002 MT 262, ¶ 9, 312 Mont. 240, ¶ 9, 59 P.3d 377, ¶ 9.

DISCUSSION

¶ 10 Did the District Court err when it concluded that the LMRDA preempted Vitullo's state law claims under the Montana Wrongful Discharge From Employment Act?

¶ 11 The District Court concluded that Vitullo's state law claims were preempted by the LMRDA. Based on Finnegan v. Leu (1982), 456 U.S. 431, 102 S.Ct. 1867, 72 L.Ed.2d 239, the District Court concluded that, by passing the LMRDA, Congress sought to promote union democracy and responsiveness, and that, integral to promoting democracy, is "the ability of an elected union president to select his own administration[, thus] ensuring a union administration's responsiveness to the mandate of the union election." See Finnegan, 456 U.S. at 441,

102 S.Ct. at 1873,

72 L.Ed.2d at 247. The District Court concluded that, similar to the union bylaws in Finnegan, the IBEW's constitution gives the locally elected business manager the authority to appoint and to discharge assistants at any time. The District Court further noted that IBEW's constitution, in Article XVI, Section 2, provides that assistants appointed by the business manager shall cooperate with and not work in conflict with the business manager, language similar to the democratically adopted union bylaws in Finnegan.

¶ 12 The District Court also relied upon the two California cases of Screen Extras Guild, Inc. v. Superior Court (1990), 51 Cal.3d 1017, 275 Cal.Rptr. 395, 800 P.2d 873, and Tyra v. Kearney (1984), 153 Cal.App.3d 921, 200 Cal.Rptr. 716, noting that the California Supreme Court and the California Court of Appeals, both relying upon Finnegan, have held that the strong policy favoring union democracy in the LMRDA preempts state causes of action for wrongful discharge or related torts "when brought against a union-employer by its former management or policymaking employee." See Screen Extras Guild, 275 Cal.Rptr. 395,

800 P.2d at 874.

¶ 13 Neither this Court nor the United States Supreme Court easily favors preemption. Dukes v. Sirius Constr., Inc., 2003 MT 152, ¶ 18, 316 Mont. 226, ¶ 18, 73 P.3d 781, ¶ 18; see also Favel v. American Renovation and Constr. Co., 2002 MT 266, ¶ 39, 312 Mont. 285,

¶ 39, 59 P.3d 412, ¶ 39, and Medtronic, Inc. v. Lohr (1996), 518 U.S. 470, 485, 116 S.Ct. 2240, 2250, 135 L.Ed.2d 700, 715.

¶ 14 This Court recognizes three ways in which federal law may preempt state law. Dukes, ¶ 20; Favel, ¶ 40. The first is by express preemption, wherein Congress includes a preemption clause providing that state law will not apply in the area governed by the federal statute. Absent express preemption, this Court recognizes two types of implied preemption. The first is "field preemption," wherein the scheme of federal regulation is so pervasive or comprehensive that it is reasonable to infer that Congress intended to "occupy the field" and leave no room for supplementary state regulation. Dukes, ¶ 20; Favel, ¶ 40. The second type of implied preemption is "conflict preemption." Conflict preemption manifests itself as an inability of state law to comply with federal law or where state law stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress. Dukes, ¶ 20; Favel, ¶ 40 (citing Hillsborough County v. Automated Medical Labs. (1985), 471 U.S. 707, 713, 105 S.Ct. 2371, 2375, 85 L.Ed.2d 714, 721).

¶ 15 "Because the States are independent sovereigns in our federal system, we have long presumed that Congress does not cavalierly pre-empt state-law causes of action. In all pre-emption cases, ... we start with the assumption that the historic police powers of the States were not to be superseded by the Federal Act unless that was the clear and manifest purpose of Congress." Dukes, ¶ 19; Favel, ¶ 39 (citing Sleath v. West Mont Home Health Services, 2000 MT 381, ¶ 23, 304 Mont. 1, ¶ 23, 16 P.3d 1042, ¶ 23).

¶ 16 Vitullo stresses that the United States Supreme Court in Finnegan did not discuss whether the LMRDA preempts state law regarding wrongful discharge or other violations of state law, but, rather, held that the LMRDA itself applies only to union members and not to appointed officials. Vitullo argues therefrom that Finnegan does not answer or address the question of whether state remedies are available for appointed officials who are discharged from employment.

¶ 17 Vitullo also contends that the two California cases relied on by the District Court are inapplicable because, in both cases, the union's definition of "at will" employment was consistent with California's statutory definition, whereas, in the instant case, Montana labor law, in Vitullo's view, is significantly different than the practices permitted by IBEW's constitution. Specifically, Vitullo contends that this Court has previously held, in Foster v. Albertsons (1992), 254 Mont. 117, 835 P.2d 720, that federal labor law does not preempt or prevent an employee from suing for a discharge which is in violation of public policy.

¶ 18 In Foster, this Court held, in part, that the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947 did not preempt the plaintiff's retaliatory discharge claim because her claim, based upon allegations of sexual harassment and subsequent retaliatory discharge for resisting her supervisor's advances, was a state law cause of action independent of the collective bargaining agreement for purposes of the Act. Foster, 254 Mont. at 127, 835 P.2d at 727. Noting that the United States Supreme Court had held that "a state-law claim is preempted by [the Act] only where its resolution requires construing the collective bargaining agreement," Foster, 254 Mont. at 126, 835 P.2d at 726 (quoting Lingle v. Norge Division of Magic Chef,...