Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-00736/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-00736-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 720
Nature of Suit: Labor Management Relations Act
Cause of Action: 29:185 Labor/Mgt. Relations (Contracts)

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

LITTLER MENDELSON

R. BRIAN DIXON, CA Bar No. 76247

PHILIP L. ROSS, CABar No. 90042

LAURAE. HAYWARD, CABar No. 204014

LITTLER MENDELSON

A Professional Corporation

650 California Street, 20th Floor

San Francisco, CA 94108.2693

Telephone: 415.433.1940

FaxNo.: 415.399.8490

Attorneys for Defendant

SAFEWAY INC.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

JUSTIN B. DOMBKOWSKI, JUAN M.

CHAVEZ, CHRISTINE LOPEZ,

KATHERINE MILES and DEE DEE

SMITH,

Plaintiffs,

v.

SAFEWAY INC. and DOES 1 to 10,

inclusive,

Defendants

Case No. C-05-0736 JF

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING

DEFENDANT SAFEWAY INC.'S

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Hearing Date: December 2, 2005

Time: 9:00 a.m.

Courtroom: 3. 5th Floor

Judge: Hon. Jeremy Fogel

Defendant Safeway hereby submits for the Court's consideration the attached revised

"Proposed Order" Granting Safeway's Motion For Summary Judgment, which reflects the Plaintiffs'

recently filed Non-Opposition to the granting of Safeway's motion.

Dated: November 14, 2005 Respectfully submitted,

LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.

Bv: JJ0&.

PHILIP L.'ROS

Attorneys for Defendant

SAFEWAY INC.

(PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Case No. C 05 0736 JF

Case 5:05-cv-00736-JF Document 28 Filed 11/16/05 Page 1 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

LITTLER MENDELSON

A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION

650 California street

20lh Floor

ian Francisco, CA 94108.2692

415 433.1940

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

JUSTIN B. DOMBKOWSKI, JUAN M.

CHAVEZ, CHRISTINE LOPEZ,

KATHERINE MILES and DEE DEE

SMITH,

Plaintiffs,

v.

SAFEWAY INC. and DOES 1 to 10,

inclusive,

Defendants

Case No. C-05-0736 HRL

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT

SAFEWAY EVC.'S MOTION FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Hearing Date: December 2, 2005

Time: 9:00 a.m.

Courtroom: 3. 5th Floor

Judge: Hon. Jeremy Fogel

A motion having been made by Defendant Safeway Inc. ("Safeway") for summary judgment

in its favor and against Plaintiffs Justin B. Dombkowski, Juan M. Chavez, Christine Lopez,

Katherine Miles and Dee Dee Smith (collectively the "Plaintiffs") on their claim as brought against

Safeway in the First Amended Complaint upon the ground that there is no genuine issue of material

fact and that Defendant Safeway is entitled to judgment in its favor as a matter of law; and Plaintiffs

having filed a Statement of Non-Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:

1. That summary judgment is granted and entered in favor of Defendant Safeway Inc.

and against Plaintiffs Justin B. Dombkowski, Juan M. Chavez, Christine Lopez, Katherine Miles and

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT SAFEWAY'S i n ,, ,, n«n-r«Ti7

MOTIONFORSUMMARYJUDGMENT

 L Case No. C 05 0736 JF

**E-filed 11/16/05**

Case 5:05-cv-00736-JF Document 28 Filed 11/16/05 Page 2 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

LITTLER MENDELSON

650 California Slr»«l

20lt> Floor

ian Francisco. CA 94108.2693

415 433.1940

Dee Dee Smith, dismissing with prejudice the action as brought by these Plaintiffs against Defendant

Safeway, with costs and disbursement as allowable to be taxed by the Clerk in favor of Defendant

Safeway against all Plaintiffs.

The Court finds as follows.

Earlier in this action, Plaintiffs brought a motion to remand this case back to state court,

where it was originally filed. In denying the motion to remand, this Court found that Plaintiffs'

claim seeking penalties under the California Labor Code for Safeway's alleged failure to timely pay

apprentice wage rate "step" increases provided for in the collective bargaining agreements between

Safeway and the United Food and Commercial Workers Locals 101, 120, 373-R, 428, 588, 648, 839,

870 and 1179 (collectively "the UFCW Locals") covering Plaintiffs' employment, required an

interpretation of the collective bargaining agreements. [Docket #21.] As such, Plaintiffs' state law

claim is completely preempted by Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations (LMRA), 29

U.S.C. § 185(a) and properly recharacterized as a federal Section 301 claim governed by substantive

federal law principles.

The Safeway/UFCW Locals collective bargaining agreements all contain a mandatory

grievance and arbitration procedure; one which is expressly made exclusive with respect to wage

claims requiring an interpretation of the collective bargaining agreements. (CBAs, Sec. 18.1 and

18.8.) Employees like the Plaintiffs may not bring a Section 301 action in court against their

employer unless the employees have exhausted the contractual grievance/arbitration procedures.

Republic Steel Corp. v. Maddox, 379 U.S. 650, 652-653, 85 S.Ct. 614, 616 (1965); Vaca v. Sipes,

386 U.S. 171, 184, 87 S.Ct. 903, 914 (1967); DelCostello v. Int'l Bhd OfTeamters, 462 U.S. 151,

163, 103 S.Ct. 2281, 2290 (1983); Atchley v. Heritage Cable Vision Associates, 926 F.Supp 1381

(N.D. Ind. 1996), affirmed, 101 F.3d 496 (7th Cir. 1996) An exception to this exhaustion rule

exists, which permits an employee to obtain judicial review of a collective bargaining agreement

contract claim despite a failure to exhaust contractual remedies, if the plaintiff can show that the

union breached its duty of fair representation. Vaca, supra, 386 U.S. at 185-86, 87 S.Ct. at 914-15;

Nines v. Anchor Motor Freight, 424 U.S. 554, 563, 96 S.Ct. 1048, 1055-56 (1976). "A breach of the

statutory duty of fair representation occurs only when a union's conduct toward a member of the

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT SAFEWAY'S ~ „ „ ~ft4. n~A „,

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

 Z Case INo. C U5 U7J6 J*

Case 5:05-cv-00736-JF Document 28 Filed 11/16/05 Page 3 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

collective bargaining unit is arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad faith." Vaca, supra, 386 U.S. at 190,

87 S.Ct. at 916.

Here, the UFCW Locals representing the Plaintiffs brought grievances under the collective

bargaining agreements challenging the timing of Safeway's payment of the apprentice wage rate

"step" increases. However, the UFCW Locals settled those grievances with Safeway short of

arbitration through a final and binding written Settlement Agreement that did not resolve the

underlying contractual dispute. Given this early settlement of the grievances, the Plaintiffs'

recharacterized Section 301 action cannot be maintained as they have failed to exhaust the

mandatory grievance/arbitration provisions in the collective bargaining agreements. Further, the

Plaintiffs have neither pled, nor can prove, any excuse for failing to exhaust that contractual remedy

- for example, any breach of the duty of fair representation by the UFCW Locals representing them.

"[A] union does not breach its duty of fair representation ... merely because it settled the grievance

short of arbitration." Vaca, supra, 386 U.S. at 191-192, 87 S.Ct. at 917-918. Accordingly,

Defendant Safeway is entitled to summary judgment dismissing with prejudice the Plaintiffs'

recharacterized Section 301 action.

Dated: ^2005

U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

Firmwide:80303403.1 001153.1495

LITTLER MENDELSON

A PROFEIIIOHAL CORPORATION

650 Cilifornii Slr*«l

20th Floor

ian Francisco, CA 94108 2693

415 433 1940

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT SAFEWAY'S

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

3. Case No. C 05 0736 JF

11/16 Jeremy Fogel /s/electronic signature authorized

Case 5:05-cv-00736-JF Document 28 Filed 11/16/05 Page 4 of 4