ÿWPC  ŠvÅ"úª!I€ÉP¿í©*¤{yvŠüÈ’qE‰BïKÙÛ3>âëœü]™kÇá))$À8a™»O/5Úxâ[ÿŽëÄoËL"&#±ÿœädMb¤=qÝ•tÞòne³Çtø¢ó‰)ÿ°Øêx¬63(¼¢YêȬé,¯ÙBUËy9þm_Çš¯æ8¥³M)«SÚUŽwznŒ ±'}À½:  Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à)à è à01„A„01„9804„CV„00195Ð $  ÐœVS›.à Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à)Ð æ  Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à)à è àDavidson€CircuitÐ Ìð  ÐœPIRELLI›€ARMSTRONG€TIREà 8 àà  à)à è àNo.€œ95C›„3232à ð àà H! àà  # àÐ ²Ö  ÐCORPORATION,€UNITED€RUBBER,à  à)Ð ˜¼ ÐCORK,€LINOLEUM€AND€PLASTICà  à)Ð ~¢ ÐWORKERS€OF€AMERICA,€AND€à 8 àà  à)Ð dˆ ÐœURW›€LOCAL€UNION€670,à 8 àà  àà è à)Ð Jn Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à)Ìà Ø àDefendants/Appellees.à 8 àà  à)Ð : ÐÌÌà@ï ï êàAPPEALED€FROM€THE€CIRCUIT€COURT€OF€DAVIDSON€COUNTYˆÌà@#êàAT€NASHVILLE,€TENNESSEEˆÌÌà@X X êàTHE€HONORABLE€THOMAS€W.€BROTHERS,€JUDGEˆÌÌÌòòFOR€APPELLANTS:óóà à àà 8 àà  àà è àòòFOR€APPELLEE€œPIRELLI›óóÐ ,!P Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  àà è àòòARMSTRONG€TIRE€CORP.:óóÐ "6 ÐJeffrey€A.€œGreene›à ˆ àÐ ø"  ÐJohn€W.€œBarringer›,€Jr.à à àà 8 àà  àà è àCharles€Hampton€WhiteÐ Þ#! ÐœGoodlettsville›,€Tennessee€à 8 àà  àà è àRichard€L.€œColbert›Ð Ä$è" Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  àà è àNashville,€TennesseeÌRobert€L.€œDelaney›ÌNashville,€Tennesseeà à àà 8 àà  àà è àòòFOR€APPELLEE€UNITED€RUBBER,Ð v'š!% Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  àà è àCORK,€LINOLEUM€and€PLASTICÌà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  àà è àWORKERS€OF€AMERICA:óóÐ B)f#' ÐÌà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  àà è àCharles€R.€Armstrongà H! àà  # àÐ +2%) Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  àà è àAkron,€Ohio€€€44320ÌÌà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  àà è àòòFOR€APPELLEE€œURW›óóÐ À-ä', Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  àà è àòòLOCAL€UNION€670:óóÐ ¦.Ê(- ÐÌà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  àà è àGeorge€E.€BarrettÌà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  àà è àPhillip€A.€œPurcell›Ìà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  àà è àNashville,€Tennessee€ÌÌÌà@||$êàœREVERSED›€AND€REMANDEDˆÌÌÌà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  àà è àBEN€H.€CANTRELL,Ìà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  àà è àPRESIDING€JUDGE,€M.S.ÌÌÌÓÓò òÔ€„,$„XXÿóÔòòà@tt(êàO€P€I€N€I€O€Nóóó óÔ€XÿóX„„,$ԈР:;^5; Їà Ø àà 0 àWhen€replacement€workers€were€fired€to€make€room€for€the€returningÏunion€employees€at€the€end€of€a€strike,€the€replacement€workers€œbrought€suit€against›Ïthe€employer€for€breach€of€contract€and€retaliatory€œdischarge,›€and€œagainst›€the€localÏand€international€unions€for€intentional€interference€with€œtheir€contract.›€€The€trial€courtÏgranted€the€employerððs€motion€to€dismiss€the€breach€of€contract€œcount,›€because€œitÏbelieved€the›€individual€contracts€had€been€subsumed€into€the€collective€bargainingÏœagreement,€but€it›€overruled€the€œmotion›€to€dismiss€the€retaliatory€discharge€count.€€TheÏcourt€œgranted›€the€unionsðð€motion€to€œdismiss,›€because€œit€believed€the›€complaint€did€notÏstate€a€cause€of€action€for€intentional€interference€with€an€employment€at€will€contract.€ÏœWe€reverse€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.›ÌÌà@²²-êàò òI.ó óˆÐ  Ä Ðà@ŠŠ(êàò òa.€€The€Factsó óˆÐ xœ ÐÌà Ø àà 0 àSince€this€case€was€decided€on€a€motion€to€dismiss€we€take€the€factsÏfrom€a€liberal€construction€of€the€complaint,€òòœHuckeby›€v.€œSpangler›óó,€521€S.W.2d€568Ð è  Ð(Tenn.€1975),€and€we€assume€the€facts€in€the€complaint€are€true,€òòœCornpropst›€v.€Sloanóó,Ð ¸"Ü  Ð528€S.W.2d€188€(Tenn.€1975).ÌÌà Ø àà 0 àThe€complaint€alleges€that€œPirelli›€Armstrong€Tire€Corporation€(œPirelli›)Ïoperated€a€manufacturing€plant€in€Madison,€Tennessee€where€substantially€all€of€theÏhourly€workers€were€represented€by€the€United€Rubber,€Cork,€Linoleum€and€PlasticÏWorkers€Union.€€œThe€Pirelli€workers€were€members€of€Local€670.€€In›€July€of€1994,€theÏworkers€went€out€on€strike.€€œPirelli›€hired€some€replacement€workers,€and€afterÏdeclaring€that€the€parties€had€ð ðbargained€to€an€impasse,ðð€the€company€œterminated€theÏstrikers›€and€began€to€hire€ð ðpermanentðð€replacement€workers.€€All€the€replacementÏworkers€were€hired€with€an€express€or€implied€promise€that€they€would€not€beÏterminated€solely€to€make€room€œfor€the€returning€strikers.Ìâ âÐ L8p28 Ðà Ø àà 0 àIn›€March€of€1995,€the€union€and€the€company€entered€into€a€newÏâ âcollective€bargaining€agreement€(œCBA›).€€The€company€began€to€rehire€the€unionÏmembers€œand,›€under€pressure€from€the€local€and€the€national€unions,€to€fire€theÏreplacement€workers€for€œpretextual›€reasons.€€Ultimately€all€of€the€replacement€workersÏwere€fired.ÌÌà@  !êàò òb.€€The€Procedural€Historyó óˆÐ ¼à ÐÌà Ø àà 0 àThe€named€plaintiffs€brought€an€action€against€the€company€for€a€breachÏof€contract€and€for€a€retaliatory€discharge.€€The€complaint€sought€to€recover€trebleÏdamages€from€the€unions€for€an€intentional€interference€with€the€plaintiffsðð€contract€ofÏemployment€with€the€œcompany.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€42„50„109›Ð  @ ÐÌà Ø àà 0 àThe€defendants€jointly€removed€the€case€to€the€federal€district€court,€butÏthat€court€remanded€the€counts€containing€the€causes€of€action€referred€to€above.€ÏThe€defendants€then€filed€motions€to€dismiss€under€Rule€12.02(6),€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€Proc.€ÏThe€trial€judge€overruled€the€companyððs€motion€to€dismiss€the€retaliatory€dischargeÏclaim€but€granted€the€motions€as€to€the€other€counts.ÌÌà@^^,êàò òII.€€œˆÐ /@), Ðà@ãã$êàRetaliatory›€Dischargeó óˆÐ ü0 +. ÐÌà Ø àà 0 àWe€will€deal€first€with€the€companyððs€contention€that€the€trial€judge€erredÏin€failing€to€dismiss€the€claim€for€retaliatory€discharge.€€The€elements€of€such€a€causeÏof€action€are€fairly€simple:€ð ðAn€employment€at€will€relationship;€œa›€clear€declaration€ofÐ |8 26 Ðpublic€policy€which€imposes€duties€on€the€employee€or€employer;€and€discharge€of€theÏemployee€for€refusing€to€violate€those€duties.ðð€€òòœReynolds›€œv.›€Ozark€Motor€Lines,€Inc.óó,Ð ¼à Ð887€S.W.2d€822€at€825€(Tenn.€1994).€€The€œòòReynoldsóó€court›€cited€examples€of€aÐ œ À Ðretaliatory€discharge€from€other€jurisdictions€where€employees€had€been€fired€for:Ïrefusing€to€commit€œperjury;›€refusing€to€ignore€a€lawful€subpoena;€œrefusing›€to€ignore€aÏsubpoena€to€jury€duty;€refusing€to€falsify€records€in€product€labeling;€and€refusing€toÏfalsely€certify€that€products€had€been€tested€when€they€had€not.€€òòId.óó€at€824,€citingÐ @  ÐòòœChism›€v.€Mid„South€Milling€Co.óó,€762€S.W.2d€552€at€556€(Tenn.€1988).€€Our€own€casesÐ ü  Ðhave€recognized€a€case€of€retaliatory€discharge€where€an€employee€has€been€firedÏfor€making€a€workersðð€compensation€claim,€òòœClanton›€v.€Cain€Sloanóó,€677€S.W.2d€441Ð ¼à Ð(Tenn.€1984),€and€the€legislature€has€decreed€that€ð ðno€employee€shall€be€dischargedÏor€terminated€solely€for€refusing€to€participate€in,€or€for€refusing€to€remain€silent€about,Ïillegal€activities.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€50„1„304.ÌÌà Ø àà 0 àIn€this€case€the€complaint€alleges€the€following€facts:ÌÓÓà8 Ø àà80 Ø ü!Ø ü!àà ˆ àAs€of€the€filing€of€this€complaint,€on€information€andÏbelief,€none€of€the€permanent€replacement€workers€hiredÏduring€the€strike€for€hourly„rate€positions€remain€employedÏby€œPIRELLI›.Ð 0 ¤0 ¤ ÐÌà8 Ø àà80 Ø ü!Ø ü!àà ˆ àOn€information€and€belief,€when€negotiating€theÏnew€collective€bargaining€agreement€ratified€on€March€27,Ï1995,€œrepresentatives›€of€œPIRELLI›,€on€the€one€hand,€andÏthe€œURW›€and€œURW›€LOCAL€670,€on€the€other€hand,Ïdiscussed€the€issue€of€whether€or€not€the€jobs€previouslyÏvacated€by€striking€œURW›€members€and€filled€by€theÏpermanent€replacement€workers€could€be€made€availableÏto€œURW›€members€following€the€end€of€the€strike.Ð 0 ¤0 ¤ ÐÌà8 Ø àà80 Ø ü!Ø ü!àà ˆ àIn€the€negotiations€that€resulted€in€the€newÏcollective€bargaining€agreement€ratified€on€March€27,Ï1995,€œPIRELLI›€and€the€œURW›€and€œURW›€LOCAL€670Ïagreed€that€all€striking€members€of€the€œURW›€would€be€re„¼hired€by€œPIRELLI›,€despite€and€with€full€knowledge€of€theÏfact€that€œPIRELLI›€had€already€hired€the€permanentÏreplacement€workers€to€fill€the€positions€previouslyÏoccupied€by€striking€members€of€the€œURW›€and€œURW›ÏLOCAL€670.Ð 0 ¤0 ¤ ÐÌà8 Ø àà80 Ø ü!Ø ü!àà ˆ àOn€information€and€belief,€after€the€end€of€theÏstrike€and€through€the€termination€of€the€permanentÐ l937 Ðworkers,€the€œURW›€and€œURW›€LOCAL€670€did€not€permitÏany€person€they€knew€to€have€been€a€permanentÏreplacement€worker€hired€by€œPIRELLI›€during€the€strike€toÏjoin€the€œURW›€or€œURW›€LOCAL€670€in€order€to€remainÏemployed€at€œPIRELLI›€following€the€end€of€the€strike.Ð 0 ¤0 ¤ ÐÌÌÌà Ø àà 0 àIn€œaddition,›€in€count€one€the€complaint€makes€the€following€allegations:ÌÌà8 Ø àà80 Ø ü!Ø ü!àà ˆ àTennessee€is€a€ð ðright€to€workðð€state,€in€which€it€isÏcontrary€to€public€policy€for€an€employer€either€to€refuseÏto€hire€or€to€discharge€an€employee€simply€because€theÏemployee€is€not€a€member€of€a€labor€union.Ð 0 ¤0 ¤ ÐÌà8 Ø àà80 Ø ü!Ø ü!àà ˆ àThe€ð ðright€to€workðð€in€Tennessee€without€beingÏcompelled€to€belong€to€a€labor€union€is€a€clear€publicÏpolicy€evidenced€by€the€unambiguous€statutory€provisionÏof€œT.C.A.›€ðð€50„1„201€(1991).Ð 0 ¤0 ¤ ÐÌà8 Ø àà80 Ø ü!Ø ü!àà ˆ àœPIRELLI›ððs€termination€of€the€permanentÏreplacement€workers€who€are€members€of€the€PlaintiffÏClass€violated€the€ð ðright€to€œworkðð›€public€policy€ofÏTennessee€and€was€for€this€reason€wrongful.Ð 0 ¤0 ¤ ÐÌà8 Ø àà80 Ø ü!Ø ü!àà ˆ àThe€members€of€the€Plaintiff€Class€have€sufferedÏdamage€as€a€result€of€their€termination€by€œPIRELLI›.Ð 0 ¤0 ¤ ÐÌà8 Ø àà80 Ø ü!Ø ü!àà ˆ àThe€damages€suffered€by€the€members€of€theÏPlaintiff€Class€include€but€are€not€limited€to€lost€wagesÏand€benefits,€consequential€damages€and€emotionalÏdistress.Ð 0 ¤0 ¤ ÐÌà8 Ø àà80 Ø ü!Ø ü!àà ˆ àœIn›€terminating€the€members€of€the€Plaintiff€Class,ÏœPIRELLI›€acted€intentionally,€fraudulently,€maliciouslyÏand/or€recklessly€because€œPIRELLI›€knew€that€it€was€aÏviolation€of€both€Tennessee€and€federal€law€to€terminateÏemployees€based€on€the€fact€the€employees€were€notÏunion€members,€but€nevertheless€did€so€alleging€groundsÏfor€termination€which€were€known€to€be€false€in€an€effortÏto€cover€up€the€real€(but€illegal)€reason€for€termination.€€AsÏa€result,€œPIRELLI›€is€liable€for€punitive€damages.Ð 0 ¤0 ¤ ÐÌÌÌÓÓà Ø àà 0 àAs€we€read€the€complaint€it€does€not€state€a€claim€for€a€retaliatoryÏdischarge.€€It€does€not€allege€that€the€replacement€workers€were€fired€for€refusing€toÏjoin€the€œunion.›€€The€complaint€alleges€that€the€union€and€the€company€agreed€that€theÏstriking€employees€would€be€rehired.€€A€necessary€consequence€of€that€agreementÏwas€that€the€replacement€workers€had€to€go,€but€the€œconnection›€between€that€fact€andÏunion€membership€is€not€stated€in€the€complaint.Ð l937 Їà Ø àà 0 àWe€take€no€position€on€whether€the€right€to€work€law,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.Ïðð€50„1„201,€creates€a€private€right€of€action€for€its€violation.€€The€appellants€stateÏemphatically€that€they€are€not€asserting€a€cause€of€action€for€violating€the€statute,€butÏthey€rely€on€the€statute€as€a€clear€statement€of€public€policy€on€which€to€œbase›€a€claimÏof€retaliatory€discharge.ÌÌà@BB+êàò òIII.€€œˆÐ @  Ðà@ee%êàBreach›€of€Contractó óˆÐ ü  ÐÌà Ø àà 0 àWe€are€of€the€opinion€that€the€complaint€states€a€cause€of€action€forÏbreach€of€contract.€€A€fair€reading€of€the€complaint€reveals€that€the€plaintiffs€allegedÏ(1)€that€they€were€hired€with€an€express€or€implied€promise€that€they€would€not€beÏfired€in€order€to€make€room€for€the€returning€strikers€(see€paragraphs€41(a)€and€54€ofÏthe€complaint),€and€(2)€that€the€company€breached€that€promise€when€œit›€settled€theÏstrike€with€the€union.€€The€companyððs€promises€were€more€than€a€vague€promise€ofÏð ðpermanentðð€employment€which€creates€no€more€than€an€employment€at€will.€€òòSeeÐ ü!  ÐSavage€v.€Spur€Distributing€Companyóó,€228€S.W.2d€122€(Tenn.€App.€1950).Ð Ü#  ÐÌà Ø àà 0 àThe€trial€œjudge€found,›€however,€œthat›€the€plaintiffsðð€contract€with€theÏcompany€was€subsumed€into€the€collective€bargaining€agreement€subsequentlyÏentered€into€by€the€company€and€the€union.€€œFrom€a€reading€of€the€cases€we€find€thatÏthe€courts€use€that€expression€to€indicate€that€the€individual›€contracts€were€displacedÏby€the€subsequent€collective€bargaining€agreement€(œCBA›)€or€that€the€dispute€wasÏpreempted€by€federal€law.ÌÌœÌÌÐ |8 26 Лà@çç!êàò òa.€€The€Displacement€Issueó óˆÐ Ü ÐÌà Ø àà 0 àThe€only€authority€cited€by€either€the€company€or€the€union€that€theÏindividual€contracts€with€the€replacement€workers€were€displaced€by€the€œCBA›€is€òòœBeals›Ð |   Ðv.€œKiewit›€Pacific€Co.óó,€114€F.œ3d›€892€(œ9th›€Cir.€1997).€€òòœBealsóó›€is€a€preemption€œcase€inÐ \ € Ðwhich›€œthe›€Ninth€Circuit€held€œthat›€an€employee€could€not€maintain€a€state€actionÏseeking€to€enforce€an€employment€contract€entered€into€when€the€employer€and€theÏunion€were€operating€under€an€existing€œCBA›.€€To€the€extent€that€the€separate€contractÏwas€inconsistent€with€the€œCBA›,€ð ðthe€œCBA›€controls€and€any€claims€seeking€to€enforceÏthe€terms€of€the€[separate€contract]€are€preempted.€€114€F.œ3d›€at€894.ÌÌà Ø àà 0 àThe€òòœBeals›óó€court€distinguished€œòòCaterpillar,€Inc.›€v.€Williamsóó,€œ482€U.S.€386›Ð |  Ð(1987),€in€which€the€company€allegedly€entered€into€agreements€with€some€of€itsÏemployees€while€they€were€in€managerial€positions.€€When€the€employees€were€laterÏdowngraded€to€hourly€positions,€the€company€argued€that€ð ðtheir€individual€employmentÏagreements€were€subsumed€into,€or€eliminated€by,€the€collective€bargainingÏagreement.ðð€€The€court€rejected€this€argument€saying:ÌÓÓà8 Ø àà80 Ø ü!Ø ü!àThus,€individual€employment€contracts€are€not€inevitablyÏsuperseded€by€any€subsequent€collective€agreementÏcovering€an€individual€employee,€and€claims€based€uponÏthem€may€arise€under€state€law.€€Caterpillarððs€basic€errorÏis€its€failure€to€recognize€that€a€plaintiff€covered€by€aÏcollective„bargaining€agreement€is€permitted€to€assertÏlegal€rights€independent€of€that€agreement,€includingÏstate„law€contract€rights,€so€long€as€the€contract€reliedÏupon€is€not€a€collective„bargaining€agreement.Ð 0 ¤0 ¤ ÐÌœ482€U.S.€at€396.ÌÌ›ÌÌÓÓà Ø àà 0 àòòœBeals›óó€œdistinguished›€òòCaterpillaróó€œbecause›€it€involved€ð ðan€individualÐ Ü2-0 Ðemployment€contract€negotiated€for€a€position€òònotóó€covered€by€the€œCBA›,€at€a€time€whenÐ ¼4à.2 Ðthe€employee€was€òònotóó€covered€by€the€œCBA›.€€114€F.œ3d›€at€894.€€That€is€the€situationÐ œ6À04 Ðœinvolved€in€this€case.›€€œThe€appellants€negotiated›€a€contract€at€a€time€when€neitherÐ |8 26 Ðthey€nor€the€company€were€under€a€œCBA›.€€Therefore,€we€think€the€contracts€theyÏnegotiated€were€not€subsumed€into€the€subsequent€œCBA›.ÌÌà@22'êàò òb.€€Preemptionó óˆÐ |   ÐÌà Ø àà 0 àFor€most€of€the€same€reasons€appearing€in€the€preceding€section€weÏhold€that€the€appellantsðð€independent€contract€claims€are€not€preempted€by€theÏNational€Labor€Relations€Act€(œNLRA›)€œnor›€by€Section€301€of€the€Labor€œManagment›ÏRelations€Act€(œLMRA›).€€Section€301€preempts€state€law€claims€that€are€based€directlyÏon€rights€created€by€a€œCBA›€or€claims€that€are€substantially€dependent€on€anÏinterpretation€of€a€œCBA›.€€œòòCaterpillar,€Inc.€v.›€Williamsóó,€œ482€U.S.€386›€(1987).€€In€òòœBelknap›,Ð œÀ ÐœInc.›€v.€Haleóó,€œ462€U.S.€491,€498›€œ(1983),›€the€Supreme€Court€described€two€doctrinesÐ |  Ðthat€determine€whether€state€causes€of€action€are€preempted€by€the€œNLRA›:ÌÓÓà8 Ø àà80 Ø ü!Ø ü!àUnder€the€first,€set€out€in€òòSan€Diego€Building€TradesÐ <` ÐCouncil€v€œGarmonóó›,€359€US€236,€3€L€Ed€œ2d›€775,€79€S€CtÐ ,P Ð773€(1959),€state€regulations€and€causes€of€action€areÏpresumptively€pre„œempted›€if€they€concern€conduct€that€isÏactually€or€arguably€either€prohibited€or€protected€by€theÏAct.€€Id.,€at€245,€3€L€Ed€œ2d›€775,€79€S€Ct€773.€€The€stateÏregulation€or€cause€or€action€may,€however,€be€sustainedÏif€the€behavior€to€be€regulated€is€behavior€that€is€of€onlyÏperipheral€concern€to€the€federal€law€or€touches€interestsÏdeeply€rooted€in€local€feeling€and€responsibility.€€Id.,€atÏ243„244,€3€L€Ed€œ2d›€775,€79€S€Ct€773;€òòSears,€Roebuck€&Ð œ'À!$ ÐCo.€v€Carpentersóó,€436€US€180,€200,€56€L€Ed€œ2d›€209,€98Ð Œ(°"% ÐS€Ct€1745€(1978);€òòFarmer€œv›€Carpentersóó,€430€US€290,Ð |) #& Ð296„297,€51€L€Ed€œ2d›€338,€97€S€Ct€1056€(1977).€€In€suchÏcases,€the€Stateððs€interest€in€controlling€or€remedying€theÏeffects€of€the€conduct€is€balanced€against€both€theÏinterference€with€the€National€Labor€Relations€BoardððsÏability€to€adjudicate€controversies€committed€to€it€by€theÏAct,€òòFarmer€v€Carpentersóó,€supra,€at€297,€51€L€œEd›€œ2d›€338,Ð /@), Ð97€S€Ct€1056;€òòSears€Roebuck€&€Co.€v€Carpentersóó,€436Ð  00*- ÐUS,€at€200,€56€L€Ed€œ2d›€209,€98€S€Ct€1745,€and€the€riskÏthat€the€State€will€sanction€conduct€that€the€Act€protects.€ÏId.,€at€205,€56€L€Ed€œ2d›€209,€98€S€Ct€1745.€€The€secondÏpre„emption€doctrine,€set€out€in€òòMachinists€v€WisconsinÐ Ì3ð-1 ÐEmployment€Relations€œCommððnóó›,€427€US€132,€49€L€Ed€œ2d›Ð ¼4à.2 Ð396,€96€S€Ct€2548€(1976),€proscribes€state€regulation€andÏstate„law€causes€of€action€concerning€conduct€thatÏCongress€intended€to€be€unregulated,€id.,€at€140,€49€L€EdÏâ âœ2d›€396,€96€S€Ct€2548,€conduct€that€was€to€remain€a€partÐ |8 26 Ðof€the€self„help€remedies€left€to€the€combatants€in€laborÏdisputes,€id.,€at€147„148,€49€L€Ed€œ2d›€396,€96€S€Ct€2548.Ð 0 ¤0 ¤ Ðâ âÌÌÌÓÓIn€òòœBelknap›óó€the€court€decided€that€facts€remarkably€like€the€facts€in€this€case€did€notÐ Œ ° Ðbring€the€dispute€within€either€of€the€œNLRA›€preemption€doctrines.à ð àà H! àÐ l  ÐÌà Ø àà 0 àWe€think€òòCaterpillaróó€answers€the€question€of€whether€this€controversyÐ ,P  Ðis€preempted€by€Section€301€of€the€œLMRA›.€€Considering€only€the€allegations€in€theÏamended€complaint€we€see€no€allegations€that€the€dispute€involves€rights€created€byÏa€œCBA›,€and€without€the€œCBA›€even€being€in€this€record€we€cannot€see€how€theÏappellantsðð€claims€involve€an€interpretation€of€the€œCBA›.ÌÌà@oo-êàò òIV.ˆÐ l Ðà@œœêàInterference€with€Employment€Contractó óˆÐ Lp ÐÌà Ø àà 0 àThe€trial€judge€dismissed€the€tortious€interference€count€because€œitÏbelieved€the›€appellantsðð€contract€had€been€subsumed€within€the€œCBA›€negotiated€byÏthe€union.€€On€appeal€œthe›€only€argument€made€by€the€œñˆñLñˆññ‰ñlñ‰ñocal›€œñ†ñUñ†ññ‡ñuñ‡ñnion€is›€that€one€cannotÏinterfere€with€a€contract€to€which€it€is€a€party.€€(Citing€òòœForrester›€v.€œStockstill›óó,€869Ð ¬&Ð # ÐS.W.2d€328€(Tenn.€1994).ÌÌà Ø àà 0 àAs€we€have€pointed€out,€however,€this€action€is€not€based€on€the€œCBA›Ïnegotiated€by€œñŠñthe›€ñŠñLocalñ‹ñ€670ñ‹ñ.›€€And€the€intentional€interference€with€at„will€employment€byÏa€third€party€without€privilege€or€justification€is€actionable.€€œòòForresteróó›€at€330;€òòLadd€v.Ð  00*- ÐœRoane›€Hosiery,€Inc.óó,€556€S.W.2d€758€(Tenn.€1977);€òòDukes€v.€Brotherhood€of€Paintersóó,Ð ì1,/ Ð235€S.W.2d€7€(Tenn.€1950).€€œThe›€allegations€in€the€complaint€are€sufficient€to€stateÏa€cause€of€action€against€the€œñŒñLñŒñññlññocalñŽñ€unionñŽñ.›€€Ìâ âÐ Œ7°15 Ðà Ø àà 0 àAlthough€the€national€union€argues€on€appeal€that€it€is€a€separate€entityÏâ âfrom€the€œlocal€union,›€and€that€there€are€no€specific€allegations€against€it,€the€complaintÏdoes€specifically€refer€to€the€ð ðœURW›€and€œURW›€Local€670".€€In€paragraph€œ61,›€theÏcomplaint€alleges€that€ð ðThe€œURW›€and€œURW›€Local€670€intended€to€cause€œPirelli›€toÏterminate€the€employment€of€all€the€permanent€replacement€workers.ðð€€The€complaintÏgoes€on€to€allege€that€both€defendants€created€pressure€on€œPirelli›€to€terminate€theÏappellants€(paragraph€65)€and€that€in€inducing€œPirelli›€to€terminate€the€appellants,€bothÏdefendants€acted€with€malice€and€fraudulent€intent€(paragraph€70).ÌÌà Ø àà 0 àWhether€the€appellants€can€prove€any€of€their€allegations€remains€to€beÏseen,€but€at€this€stage€of€the€litigation,€the€complaint€states€a€cause€of€action€forÏintentional€interference€with€contract€against€both€union€defendants.ÌÌà Ø àà 0 àThe€judgment€of€the€court€below€is€reversed€as€indicated€herein€and€theÏcause€is€remanded€to€the€Circuit€Court€of€Davidson€County€for€further€proceedings.€ÏTax€the€costs€on€appeal€one„third€to€the€appellants€and€two„thirds€to€the€œappellees.›ÌÌà Ø àà 0 àñ…ñœñ…ñÌÓÓà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  àà è à_____________________________Ìà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  àà è àBEN€H.€CANTRELL,€Ìà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  àà è àPRESIDING€JUDGE,€M.S.ÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌÌ_____________________________ÌWILLIAM€C.€KOCH,€JR.,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌÌ_____________________________ÌWILLIAM€B.€CAIN,€JUDGEÌœÌÐ l937 ÐÑ P¨ ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÌÌÔ€¼Gš¼XXÙ-Ôò ò›à@êê.êàœññIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ¼à Ðà@™™(êàAT€NASHVILLEññó óññÔ€XÙ-X¼¼GšÔˆÐ Òö ÐœÌÌÌÌSCOTT€BALDWIN,€J.€L.€SMITH,€andà  à)Ð ¨ Ì ÐKEVIN€T.€BROWN,€individually€andà  à)Ð ˜¼  Ðon€behalf€of€a€class€of€individualsà  à)Ð ˆ¬  Ðsimilarly€situated,à ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à)Ð xœ  Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à)Ìà Ø àPlaintiffs/Appellants,à 8 àà  à)à è àAppeal€No.Ð X|  Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à)à è à01„A„01„9804„CV„00195Ð Hl  ÐVS.à Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à)Ð 8\ Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à)à è àDavidson€CircuitÐ (L ÐPIRELLI€ARMSTRONG€TIREà 8 àà  à)à è àNo.€95C„3232à ð àà H! àà  # àÐ < ÐCORPORATION,€UNITED€RUBBER,à  à)Ð , ÐCORK,€LINOLEUM€AND€PLASTICà  à)Ð ø ÐWORKERS€OF€AMERICA,€AND€à 8 àà  à)Ð è  ÐURW€LOCAL€UNION€670,à à àà 8 àà  à)Ð Øü Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à)Ìà Ø àDefendants/Appellees.à 8 àà  à)›Ð ¸Ü ÐÌÔ€¼Gš¼XXÙ-Ôò òòòà@uu'êàJ€U€D€G€M€E€N€Tóóó óˆÐ ˜¼ ÐÌÓÓÔ€XÙ-X¼¼GšÔà Ø àà 0 àThis€cause€came€on€to€be€heard€upon€the€record€on€appeal€from€theÐ Äè ÐœCircuit€Court›€of€œDavidson€County,›€briefs€and€argument€of€counsel;€upon€considerationÏwhereof,€this€Court€is€of€the€opinion€that€œthe›€decree€of€the€Chancellor€œshould€beÏreversed.›Ìà Ø àà 0 àIn€accordance€with€the€opinion€of€the€Court€filed€herein,€it€is,€therefore,Ïordered€and€decreed€by€this€Court€that€the€decree€œis€reversed.›€€The€cause€isÏremanded€to€the€œCircuit€Court›€of€œDavidson€County›€œfor€further€proceedings›€and€for€theÏcollection€of€the€costs€accrued€below.Ìà Ø àà 0 àCosts€of€this€appeal€are€taxed€œone„third€against›€œappellants€and€two„¼thirds€against€appellees,›€for€which€execution€may€issue€if€œnecessary.Ì›ÌÓÓà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àœ______________________________________Ìà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àBEN€H.€CANTRELL,€PRESIDING€JUDGE,€M.S.ÌÌà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 à______________________________________Ìà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àWILLIAM€C.€KOCH,€JR.,€JUDGEÌÌà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 à______________________________________Ìà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àWILLIAM€B.€CAIN,€JUDGEÌññ›