Pete Nicacio, et al. v. Fluor Federal Services

In late May 1997, five of the pipe fitters refused to install valves on
a pipeline running through a nuclear waste facility because they believed
the valves were underrated for the degree of pressure that would be
placed on them. Higher rated valves were soon provided, and the five pipe
fitters installed them. A few days later, the five, along with two other
crewmembers, were laid off. After the pipe fitters were laid off, several
other pipe fitters vocally supported the terminated workers. These pipe
fitters lost their jobs in March and April 1998 and May 2000.

In June 1997, the union filed a grievance pursuant to the CBA
protesting the layoffs of the first pipe fitters, but then
withdrew the grievance in early February 1998 for lack of evidence that
the CBA had been violated. The first laid-off pipe fitters were
reinstated in March 1998, but they were again laid off in October and
November 1998. All of the pipe fitters filed complaints with the
Department of Labor, alleging that Fluor had retaliated against them in
violation of the whistleblower protection provisions of the Energy
Reorganization Act, 42 U.S.C. § 5851. In March 2000, however, they
dismissed their administrative claims. They had filed suit in state court
in 1999 for wrongful discharge in violation of public policy and for
civil conspiracy. Eventually all of the appellants joined this lawsuit

Fluor filed a notice of removal of civil action to United States
District Court in August 1999, asserting federal jurisdiction under §
301 of the Labor Management Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 185. After
reviewing the pipe fitters' complaint, the district court judge found
that the claims did not require interpretation of the terms of the CBA
and therefore were not preempted by § 301. Additionally finding that
the plaintiffs' complaint did not assert a federal law claim and did not
rest solely on federal public policies, the district court granted the
plaintiffs' motion to remand to state court. The civil conspiracy
claim was dismissed on summary judgment in September 2000. After
extensive discovery and delay, trial was set to begin in May 2001.