International Longshoremen's Ass'n v. Davis

1986-05-27

Headline: Labor-law preemption held jurisdictional; Court affirmed state fraud verdict after rejecting union’s claim that NLRA barred state court, and required defendants to prove an arguable federal labor claim.

Holding: The Court held that claims of NLRA preemption go to a state court’s power and may be raised anytime, but the union failed to show preemption so the state fraud verdict stands.

Real World Impact:

Allows defendants to raise NLRA preemption at any stage, including after trial.
Requires union defendants to show an arguable federal labor claim with evidence before ousting state court jurisdiction.
Leaves state common-law fraud verdicts intact when preemption is not proven.

Topics: labor law preemption, union organizing, supervisor status, state court tort claims

Summary

Background

Larry Davis, a ship superintendent, sued a waterfront union after he was fired and the jury awarded him $75,000 for fraud and misrepresentation. A prior NLRB regional decision had treated a related worker as a supervisor, and the union defended the state trial on the merits but raised federal preemption only after losing at trial. The Alabama Supreme Court treated that late preemption argument as waived but said it would have found no preemption on the merits.

Reasoning

The Court addressed two linked questions: whether a claim that the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) ousts state-court power is a defense that can be waived, and what showing is needed to prove NLRA preemption. The majority held that Garmon preemption goes to a court’s power to hear a case (so it can be raised anytime), but also required the party claiming preemption to make an affirmative factual showing that the Board could reasonably find the activity within the NLRA’s reach. Applying that rule, the Court found the union did not present evidence that Davis was an employee rather than a supervisor, so preemption was not established.

Real world impact

The decision leaves the Alabama jury verdict intact and clarifies that state courts must consider NLRA preemption as a jurisdictional issue but that defendants must come forward with evidence showing an ‘arguable’ federal labor claim before the state court’s authority is ousted. The ruling recognizes limits on state power but requires a concrete factual showing before federal labor law displaces ordinary state tort claims.

Dissents or concurrances

Several Justices disagreed in part: Justice Rehnquist argued Congress never required ignoring state procedural rules and would treat preemption as waivable; Justice Blackmun objected to the Court’s new evidentiary threshold, urging more deference to the NLRB.