Breininger v. Sheet Metal Workers’ Local Union No. 6
United States Supreme Court
493 U.S. 67 (1989)
- Written by Tammy Boggs, JD
Facts
Lynn Breininger (plaintiff) was a member of the Sheet Metal Workers’ Local Union No. 6 (the union) (defendant). The union had a collective-bargaining agreement with multiple employers under which the union operated a hiring hall for both members and nonmembers. The union maintained a list of individuals who were in need of work. If an employer called the hiring hall and requested a specified worker by name, the union was supposed to call that worker; if the employer did not request a specific worker, the union called workers starting at the top of the list until the employer’s request was satisfied. Breininger filed a complaint in district court alleging, inter alia, that the union had violated its duty of fair representation by refusing to refer him to jobs for which he had been specifically requested by an employer. Breininger did not allege that any employer had breached the collective-bargaining agreement. The district court dismissed the complaint based on finding that the National Labor Relations Board (the board) had exclusive jurisdiction over claims alleging discrimination in hiring-hall referrals that constituted an unfair labor practice. The court of appeals affirmed, concluding that Breininger’s failure to allege an employer’s breach of contract was fatal to his fair-representation claim. The matter came before the Supreme Court.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Brennan, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 819,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.