Legal Definitions - Garmon doctrine

The Garmon doctrine is a principle of federal preemption in U.S. labor law, named after the U.S. Supreme Court case San Diego Building Trades Council v. Garmon (1959). It dictates that state and local governments are generally prohibited from regulating activities that are either protected or prohibited by the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), or even activities that are arguably protected or prohibited by it. The primary purpose of the Garmon doctrine is to prevent states from interfering with the National Labor Relations Board's (NLRB) exclusive jurisdiction over such matters, thereby ensuring a uniform national labor policy.

In essence, if an activity falls within the scope of federal labor law, states and localities usually cannot pass their own laws or issue court rulings that address that same activity. This prevents conflicting regulations and ensures that labor disputes are handled consistently under federal standards.

• Example 1: State Law Regulating Picketing

  Imagine a state legislature passes a law making it illegal for employees to engage in "slowdown picketing" outside their workplace during a contract negotiation, even if that picketing is peaceful and non-disruptive. The NLRA, however, generally protects the right of employees to engage in various forms of peaceful picketing related to labor disputes, while also prohibiting certain types of picketing (e.g., secondary boycotts).

  How it illustrates the Garmon doctrine: The state law would likely be preempted by the Garmon doctrine because it attempts to prohibit an activity (slowdown picketing) that is arguably either protected or prohibited by the NLRA. The NLRB, not the state, has the primary authority to determine the legality of such picketing under federal labor law. The state cannot create its own rules that interfere with this federal scheme.

• Example 2: City Ordinance Mandating Bargaining Terms

  A city council, concerned about local economic stability, passes an ordinance requiring all employers within its jurisdiction to include a specific minimum percentage for annual wage increases in any collective bargaining agreement they negotiate with a union. The ordinance also stipulates that any employer failing to meet this standard would face local fines.

  How it illustrates the Garmon doctrine: This ordinance would likely be preempted by the Garmon doctrine. The NLRA establishes a framework for collective bargaining, allowing employers and unions to negotiate terms and conditions of employment freely, without state or local interference in the substantive content of their agreements. The city's attempt to mandate a specific bargaining term intrudes upon an area regulated by federal labor law, which prioritizes free negotiation between parties.

• Example 3: State Court Hearing an Unfair Labor Practice Claim

  An employee is fired shortly after attempting to organize a union at their workplace. Believing the termination was retaliatory and an "unfair labor practice," the employee decides to sue their employer in state court for wrongful termination under state common law, rather than filing a complaint with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB).

  How it illustrates the Garmon doctrine: The state court would likely dismiss the case due to Garmon preemption. The NLRA specifically defines and prohibits "unfair labor practices," such as retaliatory firings for union activity, and the NLRB has primary jurisdiction to investigate and remedy such claims. Allowing state courts to adjudicate these matters would create a patchwork of different rules and undermine the uniform federal scheme for addressing unfair labor practices, which is exclusively handled by the NLRB.