Case law · Highest court · Federal

Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams

Decided
June 9, 1987
Docket
86-526
Status
Published
Jurisdiction
Federal

Cited 6,547 timesNo negative treatment found in this library

What later courts said

Each line is a later court’s own words about this case, not a summary. Read the opinion before relying on it.

How the opinion begins

[*388] Justice Brennan delivered the opinion of the Court.

The question for decision is whether respondents’ state-law complaint for breach of individual employment contracts is completely pre-empted by §301 of the Labor Management Relations Act, 1947 (LMRA), 61 Stat. 156, 29 U. S. C. § 185, and therefore removable to Federal District Court. h-i At various times between 1956 and 1968, Caterpillar Tractor Company (Caterpillar) hired respondents to work at its San Leandro, California, facility. Complaint ¶¶ 10-26, App. to Pet. for Cert. (App.) A-40 — A-42. Initially, each respondent filled a position covered by the collective-bargaining agreement between Caterpillar and Local Lodge No. 284, International Association of Machinists (Union). Each eventually became either a managerial or a weekly salaried employee, positions outside the coverage of the collective-bargaining agreement. Respondents held the latter positions for periods ranging from 3 to 15 years; all but two respondents served 8 years or more. App. A-97 — A-98.

Respondents allege that, “[djuring the course of [their] employment, as management or weekly salaried employees,” Caterpillar made oral and written representations that “they could look forward to indefinite and lasting employment with the corporation and that they could count on the corporation to take care of them.” Complaint 1ffl27A, 27D, App. A-43. [*389] More specifically, respondents claim that, “while serving Caterpillar as managers or weekly salaried employees, [they] were assured that if the San Leandro facility of Caterpillar ever closed, Caterpillar would provide employment opportunities for [them] at other facilities of Caterpillar, its subsidiaries, divisions, or related companies.”

Statutes cited

Cite this

Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386 (1987)

Read the full opinion

Free account needed

Reading the library on this site uses your account’s daily calls, the same as the connector and the API. The Free plan needs no card. Calls a day on each plan.