Because Application Of State Labor Code Provision Required Interpretation Of The Collective Bargaining Agreement, Federal Preemption Applied, Requiring Adherence To Grievance Procedure In CBA.
San Francisco Giants baseball team plays the Chicago Cubs at AT&T ball park in San Francisco, California. 2012. Carol M. Highsmith, photographer. Library of Congress.
General practitioners without experience in labor law can get tripped up by grievance procedures in Collective Bargaining Agreements (CBAs). While we can't say that is what occurred in Melendez v. San Francisco Baseball Associates LLC, A149482 (1/3 10/17/17) (Pollak, McGuiness, Siggins), we can say that CBAs contain procedural minefields. One tricky aspect of CBAs is that when the interpretation of the CBA is involved, substantive federal law and federal preemption occur.
Melendez, who worked as a unionized security guard for the Giants at AT&T Park, sued the Giants, alleging he and other security guards were employed "intermittingly" and under California Labor Code section 201, they were entitled to, but did not receive, payment of final wages upon "discharge". He claimed the security guards were "discharged" at the end of Giants homestands, at the end of the baseball season, and at the end of various inter-season events. Unsurprisingly, the Giants disagreed, arguing that the security guards were "year-round employees who remain employed with the Giants until they resign or are terminated pursuant to the CBA."
The trial judge agreed that Melendez's claim was not within the scope of the CBA arbitration provision, because Melendez's claim was that the Labor Code had been violated, not that his contract had been violated. The trial judge also agreed with Melendez that there was no federal preemption by section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act, presumably because whether a violation of the California Labor Code had occurred did not require interpretation of the CBA.
The Court of Appeal agreed the claim that the California Labor Code had been violated was not within the scope of the CBA arbitration provision. However, the Court parted ways with the trial judge on the question of preemption.
True, the gravamen of the claim involved state law, and whether the Labor Code provision requiring payment of wages upon discharge had been violated. But consideration of the state law claim required interpretation of the employment provisions in the CBA, in order to determine whether Melendez was an intermittent or a full-time employee. As the Court explained, analysis of the CBA meant that federal preemption applies, and, "the dispute must be resolved pursuant to the grievance procedure and arbitration under the CBA.
Thus, the Court of Appeal reversed the order denying the motion to compel arbitration.
Comments