On May 21, 2025, the Supreme Court of Puerto Rico issued its opinion in the case Rodríguez v. Hospital Español Auxilio Mutuo, AC-2023-0109 consolidated with AC-2024-0031. The plaintiffs, two nurses who are members of the Unidad Laboral de Enfermeros y Empleados de la Salud (ULEES), alleged that they were terminated without just cause and in retaliation for having testified in a proceeding related to a complaint filed by their union before the Department of Health.
The plaintiffs filed their claims under Act 80-1976, as amended, "Act on Dismissals without Just Cause", and Act 115-1991, as amended, "Act against the Unjust Dismissal or Retaliation of any Employee for Offering Testimony before a Legislative, Administrative or Judicial Forum". On the other hand, the defendant Hospital moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, arguing that both claims are under the exclusive jurisdiction of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) because they are based on conduct that is or could be an unfair labor practice under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). In their opposition, the plaintiffs insisted that their claims were based solely on local labor law and therefore should not be resolved by the NLRB.
The Court applied the preemption doctrine and reiterated that the determination about the NLRB's exclusive jurisdiction must be based on the nature of the alleged conduct, not on the relief sought or the statute invoked. It further clarified that the term "concerted activities" or the equivalent need not be expressly mentioned in the complaint for the NLRB's exclusive jurisdiction to apply, as it is the conduct involved, not the use of particular language, that is determinative.
Although the employees based their claims on local statutes, the Court found that the allegations related to activities protected by federal law, such as engaging in activities to improve their work environment and providing testimony against the employer about a complaint filed by the union. This type of action is within the scope of protection of the NLRA, which triggers the exclusive jurisdiction of the NLRB. The Court also took into consideration that the employees themselves had initially filed the same claims with the NLRB and then chose to withdraw them in order to file their claims in the state court forum.
In conclusion, when plaintiffs allege that a discharge is in response to the exercise of rights protected by the NLRA, the only remedy available is that provided by the NLRA and the exclusive forum to hear the dispute is the NLRB. In these cases, the preemption doctrine applies in the employment setting, so the state court is required to dismiss the claim without going into the merits, even if violations of local constitutional rights or state law are also alleged. Only the NLRB has authority to adjudicate the facts and resolve the dispute. Therefore, the Supreme Court granted the Hospital's motion and dismissed the claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
We hope the information provided was useful for your business. However, if at any time you need to discuss these statutes further, feel free to contact us.
This document was prepared for informational purposes. The document does not create an attorney-client relationship and the information provided in the document should not be considered and is not intended to be legal advice. If you have any questions or require any legal advice regarding the matters discussed in this letter or any other matter, feel free to contact us at your convenience.
