Voilas v. General Motors Corp.

Page 367

170 F.3d 367

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 (nee Marlin);

Margaret Mason; Thomas Mattei; Juan Medina; Mary R.

Merovich; Fillippi P. Micocci; Eugene Minich; Hector M.

Morales; Minerva Morales; Cornelius Morrow; Mary A.

Murphy; Edward J. Nemeth; Carmela C. Nickels; Stanley J.

Olschewski; Ronald J. Palmieri; Geraldine Parrish; James

Petrucelli; Nicholas Pfann; Gertrude Pinkney; Freya E.

Poliziana; Alfreda Prasak; Rochelle Pritchard; Carmen

Quiles; Frederick Rainer; Evelyn Ramsey; Raymond R. Rawa;

Stanislaw Rembowski; Aston Richardson; Robert Robinson;

Richard J. Rogalinski; Saturnino Roman; Olga Ruth; Andrew

J. Samu; Minnie Sanders; Anthony Scott; Ernest Scott;

Jasper T. Scott; Josephine Seckinger; Joseph B. Serock;

Margaret Shelton; Thomas Sehunuk; Frederick O. Shipp, Sr.;

Janet A. Simpson; Gladys A. Smalley; Elizabeth J. Smith;

Frank Smith; Frank E. Smith; Dolores Stewart; Robert A.

Stocker; Barbara A. Sykes; Ida Taylor; Anthony Testa;

Gilbert J. Tilton; Isaac Toney; Emanuel J. Tramontana;

Evelyn Treibly; Emma M. Twyman; Katherine Vanderbilt;

Elizabeth O. Vandewater; James L. Vandewater; Patricia A.

Velez; Robert F. Walker; Marie A. Walsh; John Walter;

Loretta Washington; John Wells; James B. Wheeler; Gladys

Williams; Margaret M. Williams; Rose Marie Winrow; George

M. Woodward, Jr.; Bonnie L. Wright; Frank Prasak;

Benjamin Isom; Michael Sebasto; Walter Lomax; John Black;

Hugh Daniels; Karl Deibler; James Duncan; Minerva

Montero; Alicea Quinones; Frank Tuccillo; Roscoe Wright; and Hank Weinman v. GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION; Inland Fisher Guide Plant, a

Division of General Motors Corporation; Local # 731

International Union, United Automobile Aerospace and

Agricultural Implement Workers of America; United

Automobile Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of

America (D.C. Civil No. 95-487).

George Voilas; John Trippa; Walter Wenski; Marietta

Berenato; Johnny M. Dollson; Augusta Budd,

individually and on behalf of all other

persons similarly situated v. Local # 731 International Union, United Automobile Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, United

Automobile Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of

America, a labor organization (D.C. Civil No. 95-2960).

General Motors Corporation, Appellant.

No. 98-5057.

United States Court of Appeals Third Circuit.

Argued Oct. 29, 1998.

Decided March 3, 1999.

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.

OPINION OF THE COURT

SLOVITER, Circuit Judge.

INTRODUCTION

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).

I. BACKGROUND

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, "Let me leave no doubt--the plant is closing. Many people take the absence of visible movement of jobs, tools, and equipment as a sign that something is up. Not so!" 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...