Belknap, Inc. v. Hale

PETITIONER: Belknap, Inc.
RESPONDENT: Hale
LOCATION: Family Court of Ulster County

DOCKET NO.: 81-1966
DECIDED BY: Burger Court (1981-1986)
LOWER COURT: State appellate court

CITATION: 463 US 491 (1983)
ARGUED: Jan 11, 1983
DECIDED: Jun 30, 1983

ADVOCATES:
Samuel A. Alito, Jr. - on behalf of the national labor relations board, as amicus curiae
Cecil Davenport - on behalf of Respondents
Larry E. Forrester - on behalf of the Petitioner

Facts of the case

Question

Media for Belknap, Inc. v. Hale

Audio Transcription for Oral Argument - January 11, 1983 in Belknap, Inc. v. Hale

Audio Transcription for Opinion Announcement - June 30, 1983 in Belknap, Inc. v. Hale

Warren E. Burger:

The judgment and opinion of the Court in Belknap against Hale will be announced by Justice White.

Byron R. White:

In this case, petitioner, Belknap Inc., a unionized employer was struck when negotiations for a new contract broke down.

Belknap then granted a unilateral wage increase and advertise for replacements indicating that jobs will be permanent, replacements were hired on -- on this basis.

Unfair labor practices are charges within file and Belknap assured the replacements that their jobs would survive the unfair labor practice proceedings.

Nevertheless, some time later, Belknap settled its unfair labor practice case with the Board and its differences with the union as well and in the process agreed to reinstate the strikers.

This was done, the result being that the replacements were discharged to make room for the returning strikers.

Some of the replacements then filed a suit in the state court claiming that Belknap had misrepresented and that it breached its contract with them.

The trial court dismissed the case on the grounds that the challenge conduct was arguable protected or prohibited by the National Labor Relations Act and hence, the suit was preempted by the federal law.

The Court of Appeals of Kentucky reversed, holding that the case will go forward because the -- because it fell within one of the exceptions to the preemption doctrine.

We issued certiorari and we now affirm the judgment of the Kentucky Court of Appeals for the reasons that we given in an opinion available in the clerk's office.

We hold that none of the cases relied on by Belknap required that -- or forbid the state proceedings to go forward.

Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

Justice Blackmun has filed an opinion concurring in the judgment.

Justice Brennan has filed a dissenting opinion in which Justice Marshall and Powell have joined.

Warren E. Burger:

Thank you, Justice White.