2018-12-28 Certiorari Petition
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
No. _______ In the Supreme Court of the United States RAY ALLEN AND JAMES DALEY, PETITIONERS, v. INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS DISTRICT 10 AND ITS LOCAL LODGE 873, RESPONDENTS ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI BRAD D. SCHIMEL MISHA TSEYTLIN Attorney General Solicitor General State of Wisconsin DANIEL P. LENNINGTON Department of Justice Senior Counsel 17 West Main Street Counsel of Record Madison, WI 53703 [email protected]. KEVIN M. LEROY wi.us Deputy Solicitor (608) 267-8901 General Attorneys for Petitioners QUESTION PRESENTED Whether this Court should overrule its summary affirmance in Sea Pak v. Industrial, Technical, and Professional Employees, Division of National Maritime Union, 400 U.S. 985 (1971) (mem.), and hold that federal law does not prohibit States from giving employees the right to withdraw dues-checkoff authorizations. ii PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDING Petitioners are Ray Allen, in his official capacity as Secretary of the Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development, and James Daley, in his official capacity as Chairman of the Wisconsin Employment Relations Commission, who replaced James R. Scott, in his official capacity as Chairman of the Wisconsin Employment Relations Commission, as defendants-appellants in the proceedings below. Respondents are International Association of Machinists District 10 and its Local Lodge 873, who were plaintiffs-appellees in the proceedings below. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page QUESTION PRESENTED ......................................... i PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDING ........................... ii OPINIONS BELOW ....................................................2 JURISDICTION ..........................................................3 CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED ....................................3 STATEMENT ..............................................................3 REASONS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION ....... 12 I. This Court Should Overrule Its Summary Affirmance Of The District Court’s Antiquated, Erroneous Sea Pak Decision ..... 12 A. Section 164(b) Grants States The Power To Limit The Irrevocability Of Dues- Checkoff Provisions, Meaning That No Preemption Analysis Is Necessary ........... 14 B. Sea Pak’s Preemption Analysis Is Unjustified, Especially Under Modern Preemption Jurisprudence ....................... 23 C. Machinists And Garmon Preemption Cannot Salvage Sea Pak ........................... 29 iv II. This Case Is An Ideal Vehicle For This Court To Fix The Significant Loophole In Right-To-Work Laws That Sea Pak Created ...........................................................32 CONCLUSION ..........................................................38 APPENDIX A: Order Denying Rehearing En Banc, International Association of Machinists District Ten and Local Lodge 873 v. Ray Allen, et al., No. 17-1178 (7th Cir. Nov. 21, 2018), ECF No. 64 ............................................................ 1a–2a APPENDIX B: Opinion And Order, International Association of Machinists District Ten and Local Lodge 873 v. Ray Allen, et al., No. 17-1178 (7th Cir. Sept. 13, 2018), ECF No. 36 ........................ 3a–66a APPENDIX C: Amended Opinion And Order Granting Summary Judgment, International Association of Machinists District 10 and Local Lodge 873 v. Ray Allen and James R. Scott, No. 16-cv-77-wmc (W.D. Wis. Dec. 28, 2016), ECF No. 59 ........................................................ 67a–82a APPENDIX D: Constitutional and Statutory Provisions Involved .................................... 83a–85a v APPENDIX E: Lisa Aplin’s Notice Of Revocation Of Dues-Checkoff Agreement Pursuant To Act 1, International Association of Machinists District 10 and Local Lodge 873 v. Ray Allen and James R. Scott, No. 16-cv-77-wmc (W.D. Wis. July 15, 2016), ECF No. 30-4 .............................................. 86a–88a APPENDIX F: Union’s Letter Denying Aplin’s Notice Of Revocation Of Dues-Checkoff Agreement, International Association of Machinists District 10 and Local Lodge 873 v. Ray Allen and James R. Scott, No. 16-cv-77-wmc (W.D. Wis. July 15, 2016), ECF No. 30-5 .............................................. 89a–91a APPENDIX G: Excerpts From Collective Bargaining Agreement Between John Deere And Union, International Association of Machinists District 10 and Local Lodge 873 v. Ray Allen and James R. Scott, No. 16-cv-77-wmc (W.D. Wis. July 15, 2016), ECF No. 30-1 .............................................. 92a–99a vi TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases Abbott v. Perez, 138 S. Ct. 2305 (2018) ......................................... 34 Algoma Plywood & Veneer Co. v. Wis. Emp’t Relations Bd., 336 U.S. 301 (1949) ............................18, 22, 30, 33 Allis-Chalmers Corp. v. Lueck, 471 U.S. 202 (1985) ............................................. 23 Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. 387 (2012) ............................................. 26 Arroyo v. United States, 359 U.S. 419 (1959) ......................................... 6, 24 Caraco Pharm. Labs., Ltd. v. Novo Nordisk A/S, 132 S. Ct. 1670 (2012) ......................................... 28 Chamber of Commerce v. Brown, 554 U.S. 60 (2008) ............................................... 33 Chamber of Commerce v. Whiting, 563 U.S. 582 (2011) ....................................... 24, 29 City of Charlotte v. Local 660, Int’l Ass’n of Firefighters, 426 U.S. 283 (1976) ............................................... 5 Colo. Springs Amusements, Ltd. v. Rizzo, 428 U.S. 913 (1976) ............................................. 36 vii Commc’ns Workers of Am. v. Beck, 487 U.S. 735 (1988) ...................................... passim CSX Transp., Inc. v. Easterwood, 507 U.S. 658 (1993) ............................................. 28 Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651 (1974) ............................................. 13 Felter v. S. Pac. Co., 359 U.S. 326 (1959) ............................................. 22 Harris v. Quinn, 134 S. Ct. 2618 (2014) ................................... 15, 37 Hicks v. Miranda, 422 U.S. 332 (1975) ....................................... 10, 36 Hillman v. Maretta, 133 S. Ct. 1943 (2013) ......................................... 24 Janus v. Am. Fed’n Of State, Cty., and Mun. Emps., Council 31, 138 S. Ct. 2448 (2018) ............................. 15, 33, 37 Knox v. Serv. Emps. Int’l Union, Local 1000, 567 U.S. 298 (2012) ................................. 15, 33, 37 Kurns v. R.R. Friction Prod. Corp., 565 U.S. 625 (2012) ............................................. 27 Livadas v. Bradshaw, 512 U.S. 107 (1994) ............................................. 33 viii Machinists v. Wis. Emp’t Relations Comm’n, 427 U.S. 132 (1976) ............................................. 29 Metro. Life Ins. v. Massachusetts, 471 U.S. 724 (1985) ................................. 29, 31, 32 Montana v. Hall, 481 U.S. 400 (1987) ....................................... 36, 37 Mut. Loan Co. v. Martell, 222 U.S. 225 (1911) ....................................... 26, 31 Mut. Pharm. Co. v. Bartlett, 570 U.S. 472 (2013) ............................................. 27 N.L.R.B. v. ShenǦMar Food Prods., Inc., 557 F.2d 396 (4th Cir. 1977) ............................... 36 Oil, Chem. & Atomic Workers Int’l Union v. Mobil Oil Corp., 426 U.S. 407 (1976) ..............................1, 16, 30, 34 P.R. Dep’t of Consumer Affairs v. Isla Petroleum Corp., 485 U.S. 495 (1988) ....................................... 28, 29 Retail Clerks Int’l Ass’n, Local 1625 v. Schermerhorn, 373 U.S. 746 (1963) ....................................... 17, 18 Retail Clerks Int’l Ass’n, Local 1625 v. Schermerhorn, 375 U.S. 96 (1963) ........................................ passim ix San Diego Bldg. Trades Council v. Garmon, 359 U.S. 236 (1959) ............................................. 32 Sea Pak v. Indus., Tech., & Prof’l Emps., Div. of Nat’l Maritime Union, 300 F. Supp. 1197 (S.D. Ga. 1969) ......... 13, 27, 28 Sea Pak v. Indus., Tech., & Prof’l Emps., Div. of Nat’l Maritime Union, 423 F.2d 1229 (5th Cir. 1970) ......................... 9, 13 Sea Pak v. Indus., Tech., and Prof’l Emps., Div. of Nat’l Maritime Union, 400 U.S. 985 (1971) (mem.) ............................... i, 2 Sprietsma v. Mercury Marine, 537 U.S. 51 (2002) ......................................... 23, 24 Sweeney v. Pence, 767 F.3d 654 (7th Cir. 2014) ................................. 4 Unite Here Local 355 v. Mulhall, 134 S. Ct. 594 (2013) ....................................... 7, 24 United Auto., Aerospace & Agric. Implement Workers of Am. Local 3047 v. Hardin Cty., 842 F.3d 407 (6th Cir. 2016) ............................... 36 United States v. Sun-Diamond Growers of Cal., 526 U.S. 398 (1999) ............................................. 25 Utah v. Montgomery Ward & Co., 233 P.2d 685 (Utah 1951) ................................... 27 x Ysursa v. Pocatello Educ. Ass’n, 555 U.S. 353 (2009) ............................................. 26 Statutes 28 U.S.C. § 1254 ......................................................... 3 29 U.S.C. § 157 ................................................... 25, 30 29 U.S.C. § 158 ............................................. 15, 25, 30 29 U.S.C. § 164 ............................................. 1, 3, 7, 16 29 U.S.C. § 186 .................................................. passim 2015 Wis. Act 1 ....................................................... 3, 4 Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-352 .......................................... 34