This case is before the court on petition for review of an unpublished decision of the court of appeals, dated January 13, 1988, which affirmed an order of the circuit court for Racine county, Stephen A. Simanek, circuit judge, granting summary judgment to the respondents. Two issues are presented for review. The first issue is whether the petitioner’s cause of action based on an alleged violation of secs. 133.03 and 134.01, Stats., and for wrongful discharge under Wisconsin law is preempted by the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) sec. 14(a), 29 U.S.C. sec. 164(a).1 The second issue is, providing that we determine that the petitioner’s cause of action is not preempted by the NLRA, whether the petitioner’s complaint alleges a cause of action under Wisconsin law for a violation of secs. 133.03 and 134.01, and for wrongful discharge. We conclude that the petitioner’s cause of action for an alleged violation of secs. 133.03 and 134.01 and for wrongful discharge is preempted by NLRA sec. 14(a), 29 U.S.C. sec. 164(a). Consequently, we do not reach the second issue presented for review.
The facts in this case are as follows. The petitioner was discharged from her employment as a registered *38nurse at Becker-Shoop Center on October 22, 1986. Becker-Shoop Center is a nursing facility owned and operated by Lincoln Lutheran of Racine, Wisconsin, Inc. (Lincoln Lutheran). On November 10, 1986, the petitioner commenced an action in the circuit court for Racine county against Lincoln Lutheran and Elaine Dyer, the director of nursing at Becker-Shoop Center, for wrongful discharge.
The petitioner alleged in her complaint that prior to September 23, 1985, she had become concerned with certain policies at the Becker-Shoop Center, including, but not limited to, nurses being treated in an arbitrary manner. Consequently, on September 23, 1985, the petitioner held a nurses’ meeting to explore the options available to the nurses in regard to presenting their concerns to their employer, including the formation of an association or organization to represent the collective interests of the nurses. This meeting was not held on work premises.
On September 30, 1985, the petitioner received a written reprimand from Daniel Langenwaltér, the administrator of Becker-Shoop Center, which noted that the petitioner had complaints about the nursing service department at Becker-Shoop Center and that she had discussed those complaints at work on work time with other nurses. The reprimand indicated that Langenwal-ter had no problem with the fact that the petitioner had complaints, but pointed out that there was a complaint procedure set out in the Lincoln Lutheran employee handbook. The reprimand noted that since the petitioner had failed to follow the prescribed procedure, she was being warned and directed henceforth to follow the applicable procedures under pain of disciplinary action, up to and including termination. The letter also contained a statement of Lincoln Lutheran’s view of the status of registered nurses at the Becker-Shoop *39Center: “[A]s a staff R.N. you are considered a professional and part of the management team. Discussion of management-related concerns you may have relative to the operation of Becker-Shoop Center or Lincoln Lutheran of Racine, WL, Inc. with subordinates is not appropriate.” Langenwalter concluded by suggesting that Arena put any questions about this matter in writing and send them to Elaine Dyer, the director of nursing, or himself.
On October 1, 1985, the petitioner’s attorney advised Lincoln Lutheran that the written reprimand from Lincoln Lutheran to the petitioner dated September 30, 1985, violated ch. Ill, Stats., and that legal action would be taken if the petitioner was terminated in accordance with the reprimand. Thereafter, the petitioner alleged, the respondents engaged in a policy of harassment of the petitioner which culminated in the petitioner’s termination on October 22, 1986.
The petitioner’s complaint concluded by alleging that the respondents decided to terminate petitioner because of concern that petitioner might attempt to form an organization to represent respondent’s nurses and that said action by the respondents was contrary to secs. 134.012 and 133.03,3 Stats. The complaint also *40alleged that petitioner’s termination was wrongful and contrary to secs. 134.01, 133.03, 103.51,4 111.04,5 and *41111.06(l)(a), (b), (c), and (2),6 Stats., and in violation of the petitioner’s right of free speech.
*42On May 8, 1987, the circuit court held a hearing on the respondents’ motion for summary judgment. In an oral opinion, the circuit court held that the gravamen of *43the petitioner’s complaint was that the petitioner was terminated for her organizational activities. The circuit court found that such conduct is arguably protected by *44NLRA sec. 7, 29 U.S.C. sec. 157.7 Therefore, the circuit court concluded that the proper forum for the petitioner’s complaint was the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and that the circuit court was preempted from exercising jurisdiction. Consequently, the circuit court ordered summary judgment in favor of the respondents.
The court of appeals affirmed the trial court’s order on different grounds. The court of appeals held, citing *45Brockmeyer v. Dun & Bradstreet, 113 Wis. 2d 561, 335 N.W.2d 834 (1983), and Bushko v. Miller Brewing Co., 134 Wis. 2d 136, 396 N.W.2d 167 (1986), that the petitioner’s allegation of wrongful discharge did not rise to a cause of action under Wisconsin law. The court of appeals noted that these cases created an exception to the employment-at-will doctrine which is “narrow and limited to instances where an employer requires an employee to violate the clear language or spirit of a statutory or constitutional provision and then terminates the employee for a refusal.” The court of appeals concluded that the petitioner’s activities were merely consistent with stated public policy and, therefore, could not give rise to a wrongful discharge cause of action. The court of appeals did not determine whether the petitioner’s claim was preempted by the NLRA.
In addition to the petitioner’s action in state court, on February 4, 1987, the petitioner also filed a charge with the Milwaukee office of the NLRB, alleging that Lincoln Lutheran had discharged her from her employment for concerted activity in attempting to organize a nurses’ association, in violation of NLRA sec. 8(a)(1), 29 U.S.C. sec. 158(a)(1).8The NLRB issued a complaint on March 27, 1987, (NLRB Case No. 30-CA-9464) charging respondents with violations of NLRA sec. 8(a)(1), 29 U.S.C. sec. 158(a)(1), and alleging Lincoln Lutheran to be an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of the NLRA.
*46On March 30, 1987, a notice of hearing issued in the case, setting a hearing date of June 22, 1987, on the allegations contained in the NLRB’s administrative complaint. Hearings were held before an administrative law judge of the NLRB on June 23 and August 3 and 4, 1987. At the time of the hearing before the circuit court and the review by the court of appeals in this matter, disposition by the administrative law judge was as yet undetermined.
On April 29, 1988, the administrative law judge found that the petitioner had been discharged for concerted activity within the meaning of NLRA sec. 7, 29 U.S.C. sec. 157. However, because the administrative law judge also found that the petitioner was a supervisor by definition under NLRA sec. 2(11), 29 U.S.C. sec. 152(H),9 the administrative law judge ruled that the petitioner’s discharge did not constitute a violation of NLRA sec. 8(a)(1), 29 U.S.C sec. 158(a)(1), because the activities of supervisors are not entitled to the NLRA’s protections. The general counsel for the NLRB excepted to the administrative law judge’s findings, and the case went before the NLRB. Neither party filed exceptions to the administrative law judge’s findings that the petitioner was engaged in concerted activity within the meaning of NLRA sec. 7, 29 U.S.C. sec. 157.
*47On August 31, 1988, the NLRB considered the April 29,1988, decision of the administrative law judge and the record and briefs in light of the exceptions and decided to affirm the administrative law judge’s rulings, findings and conclusions and to adopt the recommended order. Consequently, the petitioner’s complaint before the NLRB was dismissed.
The first issue before this court is whether the petitioner’s cause of action based on an alleged violation of secs. 133.03 and 134.01, Stats., and for wrongful discharge can be maintained in state court or whether federal law preempts such a claim. This case is before this court on review of a summary judgment motion. Consequently, we will apply the standards set forth in sec. 802.08(2), Stats., in the same manner as the circuit court. Bell v. County of Milwaukee, 134 Wis. 2d 25, 30, 396 N.W.2d 328 (1986). As such, we will decide questions of law independently, without deference to the decision of the circuit court or the court of appeals. Id.
The extent of federal labor law preemption of state labor law claims has been frequently litigated. Two lines of federal labor law preemption have developed which warrant discussion. The first line originated in San Diego Building Trades Council v. Garmon, 359 U.S. 236, 244-45 (1959). In Garmon, the United States Supreme Court articulated the following rule concerning federal labor law preemption of state labor law claims, a rule premised on Congress’s desire to avoid conflicting rules of substantive law and remedy, thereby ensuring a consistent labor policy. Id. at 242.
*48When it is clear or may fairly be assumed that the activities which a State purports to regulate are protected by sec. 7 of the National Labor Relations Act, or constitute an unfair labor practice under sec. 8, due regard for the federal enactment requires that state jurisdiction must yield. ...
... When an activity is arguably subject to sec. 7 or sec. 8 of the Act, the States as well as the federal courts must defer to the exclusive competence of the National Labor Relations Board if the danger of state interference with national policy is to be averted.
To require the States to yield the primary jurisdiction of the National Board does not ensure Board adjudication of the status of a disputed activity. If the Board decides, subject to appropriate federal judicial review, that conduct is protected by sec. 7, or prohibited by sec. 8, then the matter is at an end, and the States are ousted of all jurisdiction. Or, the Board may decide that an activity is neither protected nor prohibited, and thereby raise the question whether such activity may be regulated by the States.
Id. at 244-45. The Garmon test, therefore, is two-pronged. First, if the conduct at issue is either clearly protected by NLRA sec. 7, 29 U.S.C. sec. 157, or clearly prohibited by NLRA sec. 8, 29 U.S.C. sec. 158, the states are totally preempted from all jurisdiction. Id. at 244. Second, even if the conduct is not clearly protected or prohibited, the states as well as the federal courts must defer to the exclusive competence of the NLRB if the conduct at issue is arguably within the compass of NLRA sec. 7 or sec. 8. Id. at 244-45.
The Supreme Court noted in Garmon, however, two exceptions to a finding of federal labor law preemption *49based on “due regard for the presuppositions of our embracing federal system, including the principle of diffusion of power not as a matter of doctrinaire localism but as a promoter of democracy_” Id. at 243. The first exception is that the preemption doctrine does not prevent states from exercising their power to regulate activities that are a merely peripheral concern of the Labor-Management Relations Act (LMRA). Id. The second exception is that the preemption doctrine does not prevent states from exercising their power where the regulated conduct touches interests so deeply rooted in local feeling and responsibility that, in the absence of compelling congressional direction, it cannot be inferred that Congress has deprived the states of the power to act. Id. at 244.10
The second relevant line of United States Supreme Court cases dealing with federal labor law preemption of state law claims focuses on the understanding that Congress has struck a balance of power between labor and management in enacting the federal labor relations scheme and that states must not be permitted to upset that balance by outlawing a particular weapon which Congress has chosen to leave available to the parties. Lodge 76, International Association of Machinists & Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO v. Wisconsin Employment Relations Commission, 427 U.S. 132, 140 (1976); Garner v. Teamsters Union, 346 U.S. 486, 499-500 (1963). This *50line of preemption is based on federal protection of the conduct in question. Machinists, 427 U.S. at 138. The crucial inquiry under this line is whether Congress intended that the conduct involved be unregulated because Congress determined that the conduct should be left ‘“to be controlled by the free play of economic forces.’” Id. at 140, quoting in part NLRB v. Nash-Finch Co., 404 U.S. 138, 144 (1971).11
*51In Machinists, the Supreme Court held that a union’s concerted refusal to work overtime is peaceful conduct constituting an activity which must be free of regulation by the states if the congressional intent in enacting the comprehensive federal law of labor relations is not to be frustrated. Machinists, 427 U.S. at 155. Consequently, the Court reversed a decision by this court which upheld the jurisdiction of the Wisconsin Employment Relations Commission to issue a cease and desist order to the union. The Court found that the state had impermissibly intruded into the collective bargaining process. Id. at 148-49.12
The Court, however, noted that although many of its past decisions concerning conduct left by Congress *52to the free play of economic forces addressed the question in the context of union and employee activities, self-help is also the prerogative of the employer, because an employer as well as an employee may properly utilize economic weapons which Congress meant to be unregulable. Id. at 147.
‘[R]esort to economic weapons should more peaceful measures not avail’ is the right of the employer as well as the employee, American Ship Bldg. Co. v. NLRB, 380 U.S. [300], at 317 [(1965)], and the State may not prohibit the use of such weapons or ‘add to an employer’s federal legal obligations in collective bargaining’ any more than in the case of employees.
Id., quoting Cox, Labor Law Preemption Revisited, 85 Harv. L. Rev. at 1365.13
In the case before this court, the petitioner argues that the NLRB jurisdiction does not preempt or prevent Wisconsin courts from exercising their jurisdiction in this case. The petitioner maintains that her *53complaint contains allegations which do not concern any arguably protected or prohibited activities. In addition, the petitioner argues that even if the Wisconsin courts might be stepping into an area of arguably protected or prohibited activities, the substantial interest Wisconsin has in regulating and remedying wrongful discharges should exempt Wisconsin courts from the effects of the preemption doctrine under the state interest exception to the Garmon rule.
In regard to the Machinists line of preemption, the petitioner argues that a congressional intention to bar states from acting in a certain area must be clearly shown. The respondents argue that NLRA sec. 14(a), 29 U.S.C. sec. 164(a), demonstrates the congressional intention to bar the state from acting in the case before this court. The petitioner, on the other hand, maintains that NLRA sec. 14(a), 29 U.S.C. sec. 164(a), refers solely to national or state laws “relating to collective bargaining” and that there was no “collective action” taken by the nurses she was attempting to get to form a united front. Therefore, the petitioner maintains that the federal statute is not applicable to the situation before this court and that this court is not preempted under the Machinists line of preemption.
We begin our analysis by noting that the NLRA applies to “employees” but not “supervisors.” Through NLRA secs. 2(3), 2(11), and 14(a), 29 U.S.C. secs. 152(3), 152(11), and 164(a), Congress excluded supervisors from the protection afforded rank-and-file employees who engage in concerted activity for their mutual benefit. Congress’s purpose was to assure management of the undivided loyalty of its supervisory personnel by making sure that no employer would have to retain as its agent one who is obligated to the union. Florida *54Power & Light Co. v. Electrical Workers, 417 U.S. 790, 808 (1974). As such, supervisors discharged for engaging in concerted activity have no remedy under the NLRA. See Beasley v. Food Fair of North Carolina, 416 U.S. 653, 655-56 (1974); Hanna Mining v. Marine Engineers, 382 U.S. 181, 188 (1965).
As a result, when the NLRB enforces the NLRA, a threshold question is whether or not the complainant is a protected “employee” or an unprotected “supervisor.”14 With respect to NLRB jurisdictional determinations, the United States Supreme Court has stated:
At times it has not been clear whether the particular activity regulated by the States was governed by sec. 7 or sec. 8 or was, perhaps, outside both these *55sections. But courts are not primary tribunals to adjudicate such issues. It is essential to the administration of the Act that these determinations be left in the first instance to the National Labor Relations Board.
Garmon, 359 U.S. at 244-45.
The NLRB has determined in this case with unclouded legal significance that the petitioner is a supervisor under the NLRA and, as such, is not entitled to protection under the NLRA for her organizational activities.15Hanna Mining, 382 U.S. at 190, citing Garmon, 359 U.S. at 246. See also Beasley, 416 U.S. at 656. Consequently, the Garmon line of federal labor law preemption, which was relevant at the circuit court and court of appeals levels because the NLRB had not made a determination of the status of the petitioner, has become irrelevant. The NLRA does not arguably protect the petitioner from a discharge for engaging in concerted activities nor does the NLRA arguably pro*56hibit the respondents from discharging the petitioner based on her concerted activities.16
Our analysis is, therefore, narrowed to determining whether Congress, in addition to denying the protections of federal labor law to supervisors discharged for engaging in concerted activities, should be taken as also having precluded state courts under the Machinists line of federal labor law preemption cases from determining whether a supervisor’s discharge for engaging in concerted activities was wrongful under state law. We believe that preemption of the petitioner’s claim is necessary under NLRA sec.l4(a), 29 U.S.C. sec. 164(a).
In Beasley, 416 U.S. at 657, the United. States Supreme Court held that the second clause of NLRA sec. 14(a), 29 U.S.C. sec. 164(a), is a broad command that no employer shall be compelled to treat supervisors as employees for the purpose of “any law, either national or local, relating to collective bargaining.” The Court noted that “‘Congress’ propelling intention [in promulgating sec. 14(a)] was to relieve employers from any compulsion under the Act and under state law to countenance or bargain with any union of supervisory employees.’” Id., quoting Hanna Mining, 382 U.S. at 189. The petitioners in Beasley were managers of the meat departments in the respondent’s stores. Beasley, *57416 U.S. at 655. When Local 525 of the Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen of North America, AFL-CIO, organized the stores’ meat cutters, the petitioners also joined the union. Id. The respondent discharged the petitioners, allegedly on account of their union membership, immediately after Local 525 won a representation election conducted by the NLRB. Id. Local 525 claimed that the discharges constituted an unfair labor practice and filed charges with the regional director of the NLRB. Id. The regional director refused to issue a complaint on the ground that the petitioners were “supervisors” excluded from the protection of the NLRA. Id. On appeal, the NLRB general counsel refused to issue a complaint on the same ground. Id. at 656. The petitioners then brought suit in state court against the respondent under the North Carolina right-to-work statute.17
The respondent in Beasley argued that NLRA sec. 14(a), 29 U.S.C. sec. 164(a), prohibited enforcement of the North Carolina right-to-work statute in favor of the petitioners, who were supervisors under the Machinists *58line of federal labor law preemption. The petitioners argued that NLRA sec. 14(a) related only to the national or state laws “relating to collective bargaining” and did not bar state remedies for the discharge of supervisors for union membership, but was a limited prohibition against state regulations that compel the employer to bargain collectively with unions that include supervisors as members. The Supreme Court disagreed with the petitioners’ position.
The Court held that the legislative history of NLRA sec. 41(a), read with its companion amendments, secs. 2(3) and 2(11), satisfied the Court that Congress intended to embrace laws like North Carolina’s right-to-work statute within the prohibition against “any [local] law ... relating to collective bargaining.” Beasley, 416 U.S. at 658.
Section 2(3) of the National Labor Relations Act before the 1947 Taft-Hartley amendments provided that ‘[t]he term “employee” shall include any employee_’49 Stat. 450. The NLRB, after much vacillation, interpreted this term as including supervisors. Packard Motor Car Co. v. NLRB, 330 U.S. 485 (1947), sustained the Board. Congress reacted by amending § § 2(3) and 2(11), and enacting § 14(a) for the express purpose of relieving employers of obligations under the Act when supervisors, if employees under the Act, would be the focus of concern. Hanna Mining, [382 U.S.] at 188. Those amendments were the product of compromise of H. R. 3020 and S. 1126, 80th Cong., 1st Sess. (1947). There were differences in the specific provisions addressed to supervisory employees, but no difference in objective. Employers were not to be obliged to recognize and bargain with unions including or composed of supervisors, because supervisors were management obliged to be loyal to their employer’s *59interests, and their identity with the interests of rank-and-file employees might impair that loyalty and threaten realization of the basic ends of federal labor legislation. Thus the House Report stated:
‘Management, like labor, must have faithful agents. — If we are to produce goods competitively and in such large quantities that many can buy them at low cost, then, just as there are people on labor’s side to say what workers want and have a right to expect, there must be in management and loyal to it persons not subject to influence or control of unions, not only to assign people to their work, to see that they keep at their work and do it well, to correct them when they are at fault, and to settle their complaints and grievances, but to determine how much work employees should do, what pay they should receive for it, and to carry on the whole of labor relations.’ H. R. Rep. No. 245, 80th Cong., 1st Sess., 16 (1947).
Further:
‘The bill does not forbid anyone to organize. It does not forbid any employer to recognize a union of foremen. Employers who, in the past, have bargained collectively with supervisors may continue to do so. What the bill does is to say what the law always has said until the Labor Board, in the exercise of what it modestly calls its “expertness,” changed the law: That no one, whether employer or employee, need have as his agent one who is obligated to those on the other side, or one whom, for any reason, he does not trust.’ Id., at 17 (emphasis in original).
*60The same theme — that unionizing supervisors threatened realization of the basic objectives of the Act to increase the output of goods in commerce by promoting labor peace — is repeated in the Senate Report. The Report refers to the NLRB rulings that included supervisors as protected employees as
‘[a] recent development which probably more than any other single factor has upset any real balance of power in the collective-bargaining process ....
‘The folly of permitting a continuation of this policy is dramatically illustrated by what has happened in the captive mines of the Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp. since supervisory employees were organized by the United Mine Workers under the protection of the act. Disciplinary slips issued by the underground supervisors in these mines have fallen off by two-thirds and the accident rate in each mine has doubled.’ S. Rep. No. 105, 80th Cong., 1st Sess. 3, 4 (1947).
This history compels the conclusion that Congress’ dominant purpose in amending §§2(3) and 2(11), and enacting § 14(a) was to redress a perceived imbalance in labor-management relationships that was found to arise from putting supervisors in the position of serving two masters with opposed interests. See generally NLRB v. Bell Aerospace Co., [416 U.S. 267 (1974)]. We conclude, therefore, that the second clause of § 14(a) relieving the employer of obligations under ‘any law either national or local, relating to collective bargaining’ applies to any law that requires an employer ‘to accord to the front line of management the anomalous status of employees.’ S. Rep. No. 105, supra, at 5. Enforcement against respondents in this case of *61[the North Carolina right-to-work statute] would plainly put pressure on respondents ‘to accord to the front line of management the anomalous status of employees,’ and would therefore flout the national policy against compulsion upon employers from either federal or state agencies to treat supervisors as employees. Cf. Teamsters Union v. Morton, 377 U.S. 252, 258-260 (1964).
Id. at 658 -62 (footnotes omitted).
In the case before this court, the petitioner alleges that she was discharged as a result of her activities to form an organization or association to represent the collective interests of the nurses at Becker-Shoop Center. The petitioner further alleges that the respondents, in concert with others, decided to terminate the petitioner because of a concern about the petitioner’s organizational activities, and such concerted activities on the part of the respondents and others were contrary to secs. 133.03 and 134.01, Stats. In addition, the petitioner alleged that her termination was wrongful and contrary to secs. 134.01, 133.03, 103.51,111.04, and 111.06(l)(a), (b), (c), and (2), Stats.
We agree with the circuit court’s conclusion that the “gravamen” of the petitioner’s complaint is that she was terminated because of her activities in attempting to form an organization or association to represent the collective interests of the nurses at the Becker-Shoop Center. The petitioner’s organizational activities are not protected by the NLRA because the NLRB determined that the petitioner was a “supervisor.” Beasley, 416 U.S. at 655-56; Hanna Mining, 382 U.S. at 188. We hold that if this court were to recognize a cause of action for a violation of secs. 133.03 and 134.01, Stats., or for wrongful discharge under Wisconsin law on the facts *62alleged in the petitioner’s complaint, we would frustrate the Congressional purpose embodied in NLRA sec. 14(a), 29 U.S.C. sec. 164(a), to relieve the employer of any obligation “to accord to the front line of management the anomalous status of employees.”18 Beasley, 416 U.S. at 662. Enforcement of secs. 133.03 and 134.01, or a recognition of a cause of action for wrongful discharge under Wisconsin law by this court in this case would plainly put pressure on the respondents “to accord to the front line of management the anomalous status of employees” and would, therefore, flout the national policy against compulsion upon employers from either federal or state agencies to treat supervisors as employees. We believe that the legislative history of NLRA sec. 14(a), read with its companion amendments, secs. 2(3) and 2(11), demonstrates that Congress intended to embrace laws like secs. 133.03 and 134.01 and common law causes of action for wrongful discharge, when invoked in a situation similar to the one alleged in the petitioner’s complaint, within the prohibition against any local law “relating to collective bargaining.” As the United States Supreme Court has held, “The availability or not of economic weapons that federal law leaves the parties free to use cannot ‘depend upon the forum in which the [opponent] presses its claims.’” Machinists, 427 U.S. at 153, quoting in part Howard Johnson Co. v. Hotel Employees, 417 U.S. 249, 256 (1974). Consequently, we conclude that the petitioner’s cause of action for an alleged violation of secs. 133.03 and 134.01 and for wrongful discharge under Wisconsin law is preempted by the NLRA. Therefore, *63for the reasons stated, we affirm the decision of the court of appeals.
By the Court. — The decision of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.