Voilas v. General Motors Corp.
| Decision Date | 03 March 1999 |
| Docket Number | No. 95-2960,No. 98-5057,No. 95-487,95-487,95-2960,98-5057 |
| Citation | 170 F.3d 367 |
| Parties | 160 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2641, 137 Lab.Cas. P 58,597, 22 Employee Benefits Cas. 2781 George H. VOILAS; John Trippa; Walt Wenski; Marietta Berenato; Johnny M. Dollson; Augusta Budd, Individually and on Behalf of All Other Persons Similarly Situated; Lottie Ferguson; John Mellodge; Silvia Albarran; Robert L. Aldridge; Carmen C. Alicea; Beatrice P. Amison; Gerald P. Amison; Shirley Anderson; Joseph R. Andrews, Jr.; Mary Lou Arcamone; Mary B. Austin; Samuel A. Badessa; James Bailey; Raymond Bayzath; Jose Beauchamps; Mary L. Benjamin; George R. Beres; Jozefa Bielski; Leon R. Boyer; Richard M. Bracy; William F. Brady, Jr.; Richard Briggs; Freddie L. Brimley; Herbert Brooker; James Brophy; James Browne; Victoria Brown; Hector G. Burgos; John E. Burres; Adelyn Burroughs; Robert C. Case; Margaret Chambuc; Patricia F. Charyak; Elmont Cheesman; Vincent J. Chesney; Matteo Cipriano; Benjamin Cole; Thomas J. Coleman; Gloria M. Collazo; Fred M. Como; David M. Cope, Sr.; Maria T. Cowell; William R. Craft; Patricia Crammer; Joann Crea; Luz M. Cruz; Edward R. Culver; Mary L. Czap; Sophie Dardzinski; Dolores M. DeGennaro; Myrtle Delbaugh; Barbara Derry; Margaree Dillard; Edward Doroba; Anthony Doto; Anatol Dowbnia; Thomas Dow; David Downing, Jr.; Charles P. Dragos; Mary F. Ealy; Kurt Eder; Betty Eddy; Custodia Feijo; Sylvia Ferguson; Helen Figg; Ethel M. Finrock; Juan Flores; Rafael Garcia; Majorie O. Garvin; George E. Gindhart; Delores R. Glazewski; Lester Glascoe; Larry G. Goodman; Richard P. Grimes; Elfrieda Halko; Murray Halpern; Geraldine B. Hambley; Katherine Hamilton; Barbara A. Harden; Charlotte Hayden; William S. Hill; Thomas J. Horan; Richard M. Hutchinson, Jr.; Sarah C. Innis; Joseph J. Janeczek; William Jefferson; Andrena Johnson; John D. Jolly; Kathleen E. Jones; Dorothea E. Kato; Dolores J. Kelley; Dorothy M. Kelly; Margaret M. Kennedy; Bela H. Kiss; Carl H. Kuhfeldt; Sam M. Lagares; Ronald Lawrence; Chong Sue Lee; Armand Loretucci, Jr.; Jacqueline Marinello; Dolores L. Beers |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit |
James J. Crowley, Jr. (Argued), Linda B. Celauro, Kathryn A. Korger, Carpenter, Bennett & Morrissey, Newark, NJ, for Appellant.
H. Thomas Hunt, III (Argued), Anthony L. Marchetti, Jr., Hunt & Scaramella, P.C., Cherry Hill, NJ, Jerald R. Cureton, Michael J. Wietrzychowski, Cureton, Caplan & Clark, P.C., Mt. Laurel, NJ, for Appellees.
Before: SLOVITER, GARTH and MAGILL, * Circuit Judges.
General Motors Corporation (GM) filed this interlocutory appeal, contending that the action brought against it is preempted under the federal labor laws. The action was filed by former GM employees who allege that GM fraudulently induced them to accept early retirement. After the District Court denied GM's motion for summary judgment, GM sought, and received, certification of two issues for interlocutory appeal: (1) whether the plaintiffs' fraud claims are preempted by section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA), and (2) whether the claims are preempted under sections 7 and 8 of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA).
The operative facts are, for the most part, undisputed. On December 3, 1992, GM issued a press release announcing that several of its plants were slated for closure by the end of the fourth quarter of 1993. Among those plants was the Inland Fisher Guide Division factory in Trenton, New Jersey. The employees at the Trenton plant were represented by Local # 731 of the United Automobile Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America Union (UAW), and, at all relevant times, were covered by a collective bargaining agreement between GM and the UAW. On December 14, 1992, shortly after GM's announcement of the anticipated plant closures, GM and the UAW reached an agreement, denominated as the Special Acceleration Attrition Agreement (SAAA), under which employees over the age of 50 who had more than 10 years of service with the company could take an early retirement package. The SAAA program was available only until March 1, 1993, a period of slightly more than two months. GM insists that, despite the temporal proximity of the announced plant closings and the agreement establishing the SAAA, the negotiation of the SAAA was unrelated to the announced plant closures, a proposition that plaintiffs do not appear to dispute.
On December 23, 1992, Terry Marquis, the manager of the Trenton plant, issued a newsletter to the plant's employees confirming that the plant would be closed and advising the employees to disregard any rumors to the contrary. The newsletter stated, in relevant part:
Believe me when I say that all talk about potentially keeping Trenton open is false optimism originating right from this plant. No one at our divisional executive level is actively working on a scenario that could possibly keep Trenton open.... I know I'm being blunt, but I know there are many people making difficult decisions regarding retirement. I would not want any rumors influencing those decisions. The worst thing anyone could do would be to turn down one of the best mutual retirement programs available because of a rumor and then later lose what is available when the plant closes.
App. at 1109. A February 9, 1993 newsletter, also authored by Marquis, emphatically reiterated that the plant was going to be closed. In the newsletter, Marquis stated, App. at 1203.
Nearly 200 of the employees at the Trenton plant accepted the SAAA early retirement package before the March 1, 1993 deadline. On March 3, 1993, GM announced plans to pursue the sale of the plant as a going concern as a possible alternative to closure. In the course of the following year, GM negotiated with several companies, but no agreement was reached. In May 1994, GM approved a plan--drafted by a joint labor-management committee--to keep the Trenton plant open.
Six of the GM Trenton employees who accepted the SAAA package filed this suit against GM on January 31, 1995 in federal district court. Plaintiffs asserted three state-law claims: fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and age discrimination. Plaintiffs also filed an action in the same court on June 21, 1995 against Local # 731 and against the UAW (collectively "the Union"), alleging breach of the duty of fair representation. Both suits were filed by plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and a putative class of former Trenton workers. The District Court consolidated the two actions, later dismissed the age discrimination claim against GM, and thereafter denied plaintiffs' motion for class certification in the GM action. However, the court permitted amendments adding 185 individual plaintiffs.
Plaintiffs then filed an amended two-count complaint. Count one is directed at GM and alleges fraud; count two is against the Union and alleges a breach of the duty of fair representation. The complaint alleges that from December 3, 1992 to March 2, 1993--the period during which the early retirement option was available--GM falsely represented to the Trenton employees that the plant would close and that no efforts were being made to keep the plant open, when in fact the company was actively seeking to sell the factory as a going concern. GM knowingly made these false representations, the complaint alleges, to induce the employees to take the early retirement package (thereby presumably making the plant more attractive to potential buyers). The complaint alleges that the 191 plaintiffs relied on GM's...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Medley v. Atl. Exposition Servs., Inc.
...[in pre-emption analysis] is whether Appellants’ state claims require an interpretation of a provision of the CBA"); Voilas v. GMC, 170 F.3d 367, 378 (3d Cir. 1999) (finding no pre-emption because plaintiff's "claim in this case is not directly based upon the [CBA] ... nor will the resoluti......
-
Mersmann v. Continental Airlines
...Appeals briefly examined Hawaiian Airlines and read the decision as emphasizing "the limitations" of Lingle. See Voilas v. Gen. Motors Corp., 170 F.3d 367, 375 (3d Cir.1999). Specifically, according to the Court of Appeals, Hawaiian Airlines instructs that: (1) "the existence of a potential......
-
Lucero v. Bd. of Dirs. of Jemez Mountains Coop., Inc.
...pleaded to support independent claims that do not f[a]ll under" the LMRA's § 301. MTD Response at 15 (citing Voilas v. Gen. Motors Corp., 170 F.3d 367, 373-74 (3d Cir. 1999) ).Lucero then reiterates that the Complaint's Counts 1-6 "are not inextricably intertwined with the CBA and are inste......
-
Smiley v. Daimler Chrysler
...as the state-law action as pleaded does not require interpretation of the collective bargaining agreement." Voilas v. General Motors Corp., 170 F.3d 367, 373-74 (3d Cir.1999) (citing Caterpillar, 482 U.S. at 394-95, 107 S.Ct. Liberally construing plaintiff's complaint, he raises a claim inv......
-
Frederick Mark Gedicks, the United States
...enforced the ordinance to prevent display of some name and address signs and certain symbols on the poles); Fraternal Order of Police, 170 F.3d at 367 (holding that police department's refusal to exempt Muslim police officers from no-beard rule when rule provided for medical exemptions is s......
-
§ 6.6.4.4 EMPLOYMENT FRAUD CLAIMS IN OTHER JURISDICTIONS
...897 P.2d 769 (Colo. 1995).[62] Id. at 773.[63] See § 6.6.4.1, supra. [64] See § 6.6.4.6, infra.[65] Voilas v. General Motors Corp., 170 F. 3d 367 (3d Cir. 1999); see § 6.6.4.1, supra.[66] Milne Emps. Ass'n v. Sun Carriers, 960 F. 2d 1401 (9th Cir. 1991).[67] See discussion at § 6.6.4.7, inf......
-
§ 6.6.4.8 NLRA PREEMPTION.
...§ 151 et seq.[77] Kline v. Sec. Guards, Inc., 386 F.3d 246 (2004) (quoting Allis-Chalmers Corp. v. Lueck, 471 U.S. 202, 220 (1985)).[78] 170 F.3d 367, 373-74 (3d Cir. 1999); see also Casselli v. City of Philadelphia, 54 F. Supp. 3d 368 (2014).[79] Milne Emps. Ass'n v. Sun Carriers, 960 F.2d......