And Employees' Claims Were Not Preempted By Labor Management Relations Act, 1947 (LMRA).
In three consolidated appeals, the Court of Appeal affirms orders denying the employer's motions to compel arbitration. Rymel v. Save Mart Supermarkets, Inc., and related cases, C085863, C085865, C085886 (3rd Dist. 12/31/18) (Duarte, Murray, Hoch).
The employees sued defendant Save Mart Supermarkets, Inc., alleging state law statutory employment claims for industrial injuries and torts flowing therefrom, including failure to accommodate, retaliation, and wrongful discharge. After successfully moving to sever, the employer moved to compel arbitration under a collective bargaining agreement (CBA). Its motions failed in the superior court, and it appealed.
The CBA did not bind the employees to arbitrate, because it failed to clearly and unmistakably require the employees to arbitrate the statutory claims in question. The knottier issue was whether the state law claims were preempted -- not by the Federal Arbitration Act, but by the LMRA, section 301.
The Court applied a two-step analysis to the preemption issue. First, the causes of action involved rights conferred upon the employees by virtue of state law, not by the CBA. Second, the rights underlying the state law claims were not "substantially dependent on analysis of a CBA." As the Court explains, "Generally, a claim based on a 'nonnegotiable' right will rarely require interpretation of a CBA, which by definition represents the culmination of negotiations between labor and management."
Affirmed.
DRAFTING TIP: Clearly and unmistakably identify in the CBA the statutes and rights that are to be arbitrated.
Comments