VINCENT LEPORE, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. NATIONAL TOOL AND MANUFACTURING COMPANY, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT

Supreme Court of New Jersey1989-05-15

115 N.J. 226

Summary · law.co

Holding. An employee covered by a collective-bargaining agreement has the right to bring a wrongful discharge claim under state law when fired in retaliation for reporting workplace safety violations, and such claims do not conflict with or undermine the collective-bargaining agreement. The judgment of the Appellate Division is affirmed.

The court addressed whether an employee covered by a collective-bargaining agreement could pursue a wrongful discharge claim based on state law after being fired for reporting workplace safety violations. The Appellate Division had concluded that state law protected employees from retaliation for safety reporting, and the court affirmed this reasoning, noting that the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Lingle v. Norge established that employees under collective-bargaining agreements retain the right to bring state-law wrongful discharge claims independent of their union contract.

The court rejected the defendant's argument that allowing such claims would interfere with the collective-bargaining process. The court reasoned that it would be illogical to protect at-will employees and those covered by the later-enacted Conscientious Employee Protection Act while denying protection to unionized employees terminated before that statute took effect. The existence of the Act itself demonstrated the state's commitment to preventing retaliatory discharge for safety reporting, reinforcing the recognition of a common-law tort claim available to all employees regardless of union status.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Whether unionized employees can pursue wrongful discharge claims under state law independent of collective-bargaining agreements
Whether state law prohibits employer retaliation against employees for reporting safety violations
Whether allowing state wrongful discharge claims interferes with the collective-bargaining process and labor peace

Procedural posture

The defendant-appellant appealed the Appellate Division's decision affirming the plaintiff-respondent's wrongful discharge claim based on retaliation for safety reporting.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

majority opinion

PEE CUEIAM.

We affirm substantially for the reasons set forth in Judge Conley’s thoughtful opinion. In affirming, we note that the Appellate Division opinion is supported by the subsequent decision of the United States Supreme Court in Lingle v. Norge Division of Magic Chef, Inc., 486 U.S. 399, —, 108 S.Ct. 1877, 1883, 100 L.Ed.2d 410, 420-21 (1988). There, the Court held that an employee covered by a collective-bargaining agreement could bring an action for wrongful discharge that violates independent state law. Here, the Appellate Division concluded that at the time of respondent’s discharge, state law, as well as federal law, prevented an employer from discharging an employee for reporting workplace safety violations. 224 N.J. Super. 463, 468-70 (1988). Under Lingle, respondent’s cause of action has an independent basis in state law. 486 U.S. at - n. 6, 108 S.Ct. at 1882 n. 6, 100 L.Ed.2d at 419 n. 6.

It would be anomalous, moreover, to afford protection to all employees, including those covered by a collective-bargaining agreement, who are terminated after the effective date of the Conscientious Employee Protection Act, N.J.S.A. 34:19-1 to -8, and to at-will employees terminated prior to the Act under the common law, but not to covered employees who are fired prior to the Act. Our recognition of a common-law cause of action for covered employees merely closes a narrow gap between the protection granted by the statute and our earlier decision in Pierce v. Ortho Pharmaceutical Corp., 84 N.J. 58 (1980), which dealt with at-will employees.

Eeferring to the Act, the Appellate Division stated:

Although enacted after the retaliatory discharge here and, thus, not directly applicable, we view this legislation as a reaffirmation of this state’s repugnance to an employer’s retaliation against an employee who has done nothing more than assert statutory rights and protections and a recognition by the Legislature of a preexisting common-law tort cause of action for such retaliatory discharge.

[224 N.J.Super. at 470 (citation omitted).]

The fact that plaintiff was covered by a collective-bargaining agreement, moreover, should not preclude a cause of action predicated on an independent basis. As Lingle makes clear, a suit based on an independent state cause of action does not undermine a collective-bargaining agreement.

We have taken account of defendant’s argument that the result conflicts with general legislative policies of achieving labor peace and the just resolution of disputes through the collective-bargaining process. In this instance, however, the Legislature has chosen to provide an alternative to the remedies provided in the collective-bargaining agreement. See Thornton v. Potamkin Chevrolet, 94 N.J. 1 (1983) (enforcement of New Jersey’s law against discrimination and the collective-bargaining process complement rather than conflict with each other).

To conclude, an employee covered by a collective-bargaining agreement, like an at-will employee, should be allowed to maintain an action for a wrongful discharge made in retaliation for reporting safety and health violations.

The judgment of the Appellate Division is affirmed.

For affirmance — Chief Justice WILENTZ, and Justices CLIFFORD, HANDLER, POLLOCK, O’HERN, GARIBALDI, and STEIN — 7.

Opposed — None.