SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
ROBERT D. SCHACHT, Jr., et al.
91-1090              v.
CATERPILLAR, INC.

CHARLES E. BINKLEY, et al.
91-1095              v.
CATERPILLAR, INC.
on petitions for writs of certiorari to the appel-
late court of illinois, third district
Nos. 91-1090 and 91-1095.  Decided March 9, 1992

  The petitions for writs of certiorari are denied.

  Justice White, joined by Justice Blackmun, dissenting.
  These cases present the question whether, following our
decision in Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams, 482 U. S. 386
(1987), a state-law cause of action is pre-empted under
301 of the LMRA by a defense based on a collective
bargaining agreement.  A state-law cause of action is pre-
empted under 301 if its resolution is ``substantially
dependent on analysis of a collective bargaining agree-
ment.''  Electrical Workers v. Hechler, 481 U. S. 851, 859,
n. 3 (1987).  See also Allis-Chalmers v. Lueck, 471 U. S.
202, 220 (1985).
  In the decision below, petitioners based their claims
solely on state law, but respondent's defense invoked the
provisions of a collective bargaining agreement.  The Illinois
court held that petitioners' state-law claims were pre-
empted under 301 because their resolution was substan-
tially dependent on interpretation of the applicable collec-
tive bargaining agreement.  571 N. E. 2d 1215, 1218.
Several federal Courts of Appeals similarly have held that
a court must look to defenses to determine whether a claim
requires interpretation of a collective-bargaining agreement.
See, e.g., Smith v. Colgate-Palmolive Co., 943 F. 2d 764,
769-771 (CA7 1991); Hanks v. General Motors Co., 859 F.
2d 67, 70 (CA8 1988).
  By contrast, the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit,
relying on our decision in Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams, has
held that ``in order for there to be section 301 pre-emption,
the plaintiff, in its well-pleaded complaint, must plead an
action that requires interpretation of the collective bargain-
ing agreement.''  That Court accordingly examined the
claims presented in the complaint and found no 301 pre-
emption.  Berda v. C.B.S. Inc., 881 F. 2d 20, 25 (CA3 1989).
See also McCormick v. A.T.& T Technologies, Inc., 934 F. 2d
531, 545 (CA4 1991) (en banc) (Phillips, J., dissenting).  The
Illinois Court below expressly rejected the reasoning of
Berda.
  I would grant certiorari to resolve this conflict.
-------------------------------
