law may be found only if the defendant’s conduct violates the NLRA, the federal district courts lack jurisdiction under Garmon be cause the NLRA issues in the case would be anything but collateral. A litigant may not “cast[] statutory claims” under the NLRA as violations of RICO, and a claim that depends entirely upon the ability to prosecute and prove a violation of the NLRA would represent nothing more than an NLRA claim masquerading as a RICO one. See Tamburello v. Comm-Tract Corp., 67 F.3d 973, 979 (1st Cir.1995) (“Because plaintiffs claim hinges upon a determination of whether an unfair labor practice has occurred, we conclude that his RICO claims are subject to the primary jurisdiction of the NLRB.”);- Talbot v. Robert Matthews Distrib. Co., 961 F.2d 654, 662 (7th Cir.1992) (<HOLDING>). Measured by these requirements, Tyson’s
holding that if the underlying conduct is wrongful only by virtue of the labor laws then the rico claim is preempted holding that state courts have concurrent jurisdiction over rico claims and that plaintiffs federal rico claim was barred by res judicata since he failed to bring his rico claim along with his state fraud claims in prior state court action holding that the nlra preempts a rico claim when the underlying conduct of the plaintiffs rico claim is wrongful only by virtue of the labor laws  holding that plaintiffs cannot claim that a conspiracy to violate rico existed if they do not adequately plead a substantive violation of rico holding that plaintiff had standing to bring a rico conspiracy claim despite his inability to bring a substantive rico claim