Harold R. Magnuson v. Burlington Northern, Inc., D. S. Nelson, J. H. Woolford, and G. J. O'COnnell

Magnuson appeals from a judgment dismissing his complaint based on common law intentional infliction of emotional distress on the ground that the gravamen of the action was a “minor” dispute growing out of his employment relationship with the defendant railroad and thus subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the dispute resolving mechanisms under the Railway Labor Act (“R.L.A.”), 45 U.S.C. §§ 151 , et seq. 1 He contends that the district court erred in removing the action from the state court to the federal court and in dismissing it because (1) the gist of his action is in tort, rather than being based upon his wrongful discharge from his employment as a. railroad worker and is thus within the exception created by Farmer v. United Brotherhood of Carpenters & Joiners, Local 25 (1977) 430 U.S. 290 , 97 S.Ct. 1056 , 51 L.Ed.2d 338 , and (2) alternatively, his complaint should be construed as an action to set aside the grievance procedure decision on the ground of extrinsic fraud. We agree with the district court that Magnuson’s claim was within the ambit of the R.L.A. and that his failure to pursue the statutory grievance procedure was fatal to his claim.

On May 11, 1971,…

(dissenting):

I would reverse and direct the district court to remand appellant’s claim for the intentional infliction of emotional distress to the Montana court. Federal labor relations law was not developed in a vacuum but “within a larger context of state law *1371 creating rights of property, bodily security, and personality, preserving public order, and promoting public health and welfare. . It is only where the state law . is based upon an accommodation of the special interests of employers, unions, employees, or the public in employee self-organization, collective bargaining, or labor disputes that the likelihood that its application to persons under NLRB [or RLA] jurisdiction will upset the balance struck by Congress . . . requirpng the] exclusion of state law. . . . ” Cox, Labor Law Preemption Revisited, 85 Harv.L.Rev. 1337, 1355-56 (1972).

The Supreme Court has clearly recognized this in its recent decisions. It recently noted:

These two factors — a significant state interest and the risk of interference with the federal scheme — have been invoked in justifying state courts’ entertainment of defamation actions, Linn v. United Plant Guard Workers of America, 383 U.S.…

576 F.2d 1367 98 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2942 , 84 Lab.Cas. P 10,677 Harold R. MAGNUSON, Appellant, v. BURLINGTON NORTHERN, INC., D. S. Nelson, J. H. Woolford, and G. J. O'Connell, Appellees. No. 76-2949. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. June 12, 1978. John C. Hoyt (argued), Hoyt & Bottomly, Great Falls, Mont., for appellant. Bruce B. Toole (argued), Crowley, Haughey, Hanson, Toole & Dietrich, Billings, Mont., for appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Montana. Before BROWNING and HUFSTEDLER, Circuit Judges, and BONSAL, * District Judge. HUFSTEDLER, Circuit Judge: 1 Magnuson appeals from a judgment dismissing his complaint based on common law intentional infliction of emotional distress on the ground that the gravamen of the action was a "minor" dispute growing out of his employment relationship with the defendant railroad and thus subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the dispute resolving mechanisms under the Railway Labor Act ("R.L.A."), 45 U.S.C. §§ 151 , et seq. 1 He contends that the district court erred in removing the action from the state court to the federal court and in dismissing it because (1) the gist of…