Breininger v. Sheet Metal Workers International Association Local Union No. 6

PETITIONER: Breininger
RESPONDENT: Sheet Metal Workers International Association Local Union No. 6
LOCATION: Verdugo-Urquidez's Residence

DOCKET NO.: 88-124
DECIDED BY: Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)
LOWER COURT: United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

CITATION: 493 US 67 (1989)
ARGUED: Oct 10, 1989
DECIDED: Dec 05, 1989

ADVOCATES:
David L. Shapiro - as amicus curiae, supporting the Petitioner
Francis J. Landry - on behalf of the Petitioner
Laurence E. Gold - on behalf of the Respondent

Facts of the case

Question

Media for Breininger v. Sheet Metal Workers International Association Local Union No. 6

Audio Transcription for Oral Argument - October 10, 1989 in Breininger v. Sheet Metal Workers International Association Local Union No. 6

Audio Transcription for Opinion Announcement - December 05, 1989 in Breininger v. Sheet Metal Workers International Association Local Union No. 6

William H. Rehnquist:

The opinion of the Court in No. 88-124, Breininger against Sheet Metal Workers International Association will be announced by Justice Brennan.

William J. Brennan, Jr.:

This case is here on certiorari to the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.

The case presents two questions under the federal labor laws.

First, whether the National Labor Relations Board has exclusive jurisdiction over a Union member’s claims that his Union both breached its duty of fair representation and violated the Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959 by discriminating against him in job referrals made by the Union hiring hall.

And second, whether the Union’s alleged refusal to refer him to employment through the hiring hall as a result of his political opposition to Union’s leadership gives rise to a claim under Sections 101(a)(5) and 609 of the Labor Management Relations and Disclosure Act.

The Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit held that petitioner’s suit fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Board and that petitioner had failed to state a claim under the LMRDA.

We reverse the Court of Appeals holding that petitioner’s suit falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Board, but affirm the holding that petitioner did not state a claim under the Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act.

Our reasons are stated in an opinion filed with the Clerk today.

The opinion is unanimous with respect to parts 1 and 2 and the opinion of the court with respect to part three which the Chief Justice and Justices White, Marshall, Blackmun, O’Connor, and Kennedy join.

Justice Stevens has filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part in which Justice Scalia joins.