Legal Definitions - Garmon preemption

Garmon preemption is a legal principle that prevents state and local governments from regulating activities that are either arguably protected or arguably prohibited by federal labor law, specifically the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA).

This doctrine, established by the U.S. Supreme Court in the 1959 case San Diego Building Trades Council v. Garmon, ensures that the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) maintains primary authority over most labor disputes and practices. The core idea is to prevent a patchwork of state and local regulations from interfering with a uniform national labor policy. If an activity is arguably within the NLRB's jurisdiction, state and local courts and agencies generally cannot act, even if the NLRB has not yet made a definitive ruling on the matter.

• Example 1: State Law on Picketing

  Imagine a state legislature passes a law making it illegal for employees to engage in "informational picketing" outside their workplace during a union organizing drive, even if the picketing is peaceful and does not block access. The union argues that such picketing is a protected activity under the NLRA, which safeguards employees' rights to organize and bargain collectively.

  How it illustrates Garmon preemption: The state law would likely be preempted by the NLRA under the Garmon doctrine. Since informational picketing is arguably a protected activity under federal labor law, the state cannot pass its own law prohibiting it. The power to regulate such activities rests primarily with the NLRB, which would determine if the picketing is indeed protected or, conversely, an unfair labor practice.

• Example 2: City Ordinance on Collective Bargaining

  A city council, concerned about local labor disputes, enacts an ordinance requiring all employers and unions within its jurisdiction to submit to mandatory mediation and arbitration for any collective bargaining impasses, regardless of whether the dispute involves issues covered by federal labor law.

  How it illustrates Garmon preemption: This city ordinance would likely be preempted. The NLRA establishes a framework for collective bargaining and the resolution of disputes, including unfair labor practices. By mandating a specific dispute resolution process for issues that are arguably within the NLRB's purview (like good-faith bargaining or unfair labor practices), the city is interfering with the federal scheme. The NLRB has primary jurisdiction over such matters, and the city cannot create its own parallel or conflicting system.

• Example 3: State Court Lawsuit for Damages

  During a contentious strike, a company files a lawsuit in state court against the striking union, alleging that the union's tactics (such as certain types of boycotts or public statements) caused significant business losses and constituted tortious interference with contracts under state law. The union, however, argues that its actions are either protected concerted activities or, if unlawful, constitute unfair labor practices that fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of the NLRB.

  How it illustrates Garmon preemption: The state court would likely find its jurisdiction preempted by the Garmon doctrine. If the union's conduct is arguably protected or prohibited by the NLRA, then the NLRB is the proper body to determine the legality of those actions and provide remedies. Allowing a state court to award damages for conduct that is arguably regulated by federal labor law would risk inconsistent rulings and undermine the NLRB's authority to interpret and enforce the NLRA.