## Facts

- Breininger was a member of Sheet Metal Workers International Association Local Union No. 6.
- Local 6 operated a nonexclusive hiring hall under a multiemployer collective-bargaining agreement.
- The hiring hall referred both members and nonmembers; workers could seek jobs elsewhere, and employers were not required to hire only union referrals.
- Breininger opposed incumbent union leadership and participated in internal union political activity.
- He alleged union officials retaliated against him by refusing to refer him for work through the hiring hall because of his political opposition.
- He sued in federal district court asserting (1) Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (LMRDA) claims under §§ 101(a)(5) and 609, and (2) a duty of fair representation claim under the NLRA.
- The district court dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, reasoning the conduct fell within the NLRB’s exclusive unfair-labor-practice jurisdiction; the Sixth Circuit affirmed and also held the alleged conduct was not LMRDA “discipline.”

## Issues

1. Whether federal courts lack jurisdiction over a duty of fair representation claim challenging discriminatory hiring-hall referrals because the conduct is arguably an unfair labor practice within the NLRB’s primary authority.
2. Whether a union’s allegedly retaliatory refusal to refer a member for employment through a hiring hall constitutes “fine, suspend, expel, or otherwise discipline” under LMRDA §§ 101(a)(5) and 609.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court held federal courts have jurisdiction over duty of fair representation claims arising from hiring-hall referrals, even if the same conduct could also be an unfair labor practice.
- The Court rejected a hiring-hall-specific rule that would channel such claims exclusively to the NLRB.
- The Court held the alleged retaliatory nonreferral did not constitute “discipline” under LMRDA §§ 101(a)(5) and 609 because it was not a formal, union-authorized sanction imposed through union disciplinary authority.
- The Court reversed the dismissal of the fair representation claim and remanded for further proceedings, while affirming dismissal of the LMRDA claims.

## Legal Principles

- NLRB primary jurisdiction and Garmon preemption do not bar judicial suits alleging breach of the duty of fair representation; federal courts retain concurrent authority even when the same facts may support an unfair labor practice charge.
- The duty of fair representation prohibits a union from acting arbitrarily, discriminatorily, or in bad faith toward represented individuals, including in hiring-hall referral practices.
- LMRDA §§ 101(a)(5) and 609 cover only formal, institutionally imposed sanctions—punishments authorized by the union as an entity to enforce its rules—not ad hoc retaliation by union officials.
- Retaliatory employment-related actions by union officials may be actionable under fair representation or labor law doctrines, but they are not automatically “discipline” under the LMRDA absent a formal disciplinary measure.

## Conclusion

The Court preserved federal-court jurisdiction over duty of fair representation suits challenging discriminatory hiring-hall referrals, while construing the LMRDA’s “otherwise discipline” language narrowly to reach only formal union-imposed sanctions, not retaliatory nonreferral decisions by union officials.


Breininger v. Sheet Metal Workers’ Loc. Union No. 6, 493 U.S. 67 (1989)