N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
R IC HARD W AW OC K, a n individual, Plaintiff - Appe lle e , v. C SI ELEC TR IC AL C ONTR AC TOR S, INC . a C a lifornia

C orpora tion, De fe nda

nt - Appe lla

nt. No. 14-56810

D.C . No. 2:14-c v-06012-SVW
M AN M EM OR ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Sta t e s Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia Ste phe n V. W ilson, Distric t Judge , Pre s iding Argue d a nd Subm itte d April 6. 2016 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : FAR

R IS, TYM KOVIC H ** , a

nd M . SM ITH, C irc uit Judge s. R ic ha rd W awoc k atte m

p te d to bring a

c la ss a c tion suit aga inst his form e r e m ploy e r in C a lifornia

sta te c ourt a lle g ing viola

tions of C a lifornia

la w. The dispute re solution c om

m itte e de te rm ine d

tha t W a w oc k’ s c la im s m

ust be subm itte d 

# FIL ED M AY 05 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The Honora

ble Tim othy

M . Ty m kovic h , C hie f Judge for the Te nth C irc uit C ourt of Appe a ls, sitting by de signa tion.to a

rbitra tion. W awoc k a

ppe a le d to the distric t c ourt, a lle g ing the c om m itte e a c te d in m anife st disre ga

rd of la w. The distric t c ourt gra

nte d sum m ary judgm e nt in fa vor of W a

woc k be c a u s e the c olle c t ive -barga ining a gre e m e n t did not c l e arly and
e xplic itly wa ive e m

ploy e e s’ right to a

judic ia l forum . W e a ffirm
. 

### I. Ba c k g r ou n d Union m e m

be r R i c ha rd W aw oc k worke d a s a

n e le c tric ia

n for C SI Ele c tric a l C ontra c t ors. His e m

p l oym e nt wa s c o ve re d

by a c olle c tive -barga ining a gre e m e nt. Unde r the C B A, the La

bor-M ana ge m e nt C o m

m itte e a djusts “ a l l grie v anc e s or que stions in dispute .” The C om m itte e de te rm ine s “ whe the r any pa rtic ula r dispute is subje c t to the grie va

nc e proc e dure . . . .” In Fe brua ry 2013, W awoc k file d a

c la ss a c t ion suit in C a l ifornia Supe rior C ourt a ga inst C SI for fa i ling to c om pe nsate e m

ploy e e s for tra i ning e xpe nse s. W awoc k’ s suit c onta i ne d se ve n c a use s of a c tion— six unde r C a lifornia ’ s La bor C ode and the se ve nth pursua nt to C a lifornia ’ s B usine ss a nd Profe ssions C ode
. C SI file d a m otion to c om

pe l a rbitration a

nd the Supe rior C ourt sta y e d W awoc k’ s suit. W awoc k wrote to the C om m itte e tha t the C B A did not e nc om

pa ss his sta t utory c la im s be c a

use W right v . Univ e r

sal Maritime

Se rv ic e C

orporation , 525 U.S. 70 (1998), re quire d sta tutory c la im s be e xplic itly re fe re nc e d to be wa ive d.

2The C om m itte e disa gre e d without a d d re ssing W awoc k ’ s re a soning. It de te rm i ne d W a

woc k ’ s sta

tutory c la im s “ are e sse ntia lly

c la i m s for unpa id hours worke d a nd re lat e d e xpe nse s” and the re fore subje c t to the grie va nc e -a rbitration proc e s s unde r the C B A. The C om m itte e the n

de nie d W awoc k a dditiona l pa y m e nt. W awoc k c ha lle n ge d t

he award an d the distric t

c o urt va c a te d the award pursua nt to the Fe d e ra l Arbitra

t ion Ac t, 9 U.S.C . § 10(a )(4). C SI a ppe a ls. 

### II. Disc u ssio n W e re vie w the distric t c ourt “ a c c e pting findings of fa c t tha t a re not c le arly
e rrone ous but de c iding que s tions of la w de novo.” C

o ute e v . Barington C

apital Grp., L.P. , 336 F.3d 1128, 1132 (9th C ir. 2003). A distric t c o urt m a

y va c a te an a

w ard “ whe re the arbitrators e xc e e de d the ir powe rs.” 9 U.S.C . § 10(a )(4). Arbitra tors e xc e e d the ir powe rs whe re the y a c t in

“ m anife st disre ga

rd of la w.” K y oc e ra C orp. v . Prude ntial-Bac he TradeSe rv s., Inc
. , 341 F.3d 987, 997 (9th C ir. 2003) (quoting Todd Shipy a rds C

orp. v . C unard Line , Ltd. , 943 F.2d 1056, 1059–60 (9th C i r. 1991)). “ M anife st disre ga rd of the la w m e ans som e thing m ore tha n just a n e rror in the la

w or a fa i lure on the pa

rt of the a rbitrators to unde rsta

nd or a pply the la w. It m u st be c le a

r from the re c ord tha

t the a rbitrators re c ogniz e d the a pplic a ble la w a nd the n ignore d it.” Mic h. Mut. Ins. C o. v . Unigard Se c . Ins. C

o. , 44 F.3d 826, 832 (9th C ir. 1995) (inte rna l quota tion
3m arks a

nd c ita tion om itte d). Additionally , the ignore d la w m ust be “ we ll de fine d , e xplic it, a nd c le a rly a pplic a ble .” C ollins v . D.R. Horton, Inc
. , 505 F.3d 874, 879–80 (9th C ir. 2007) (quoting C arte r v . He a lth N

e t of C al., Inc
. , 374 F.3d 830, 838 (9th C i r. 2004)). A . The C om m itte e R e c o

gnize d and Ignore d A

pplic able Law The a pplic a ble la w a p pe a rs in W r ight v . Univ e rsal Maritime Se rv ic e C orporation , 525 U.S. 70 (1998). The C B A in W

right c ove re d “ a ll m atte rs
a ffe c ting wa ge s, hours, a

nd othe r te rm s a

nd c onditions of e m

ploy m e nt . . . .” Id. a t 73. The arbitration c la

use re quire d

“ [m ] a tte rs unde r dispute ” be subm itte d to
arbitration. Id. a t 72. The C ourt he ld tha

t Wright wa s e ntitle d to a judic i a l forum for his ADA
c la im be c a use dispute s c onc e rning the m e aning of a fe de ra l sta tute are not e ntitle d to a pre sum

ption of a rbitra bility and “ any C B A re quire m e nt to a rbitrate [the m ]
m ust be pa rtic ula rly c le ar.” Id. a t 78–79. An e m ploy e e ’ s right to a

fe de ra l judic ia l forum is suffic ie n tly

im porta n t to re quire a

union-ne gotia

te d wa i ve r be “ c le ar and
unm ista ka ble
. ” Id. at

80. The C B A’ s broa d a

rbitration c la

use , re quiring a

rbitration for “ m atte rs in dispute ,” wa s not e xplic it be c a use it c ould m e an m a tte rs in dispute unde r the c ontra c t. Id.

4C SI c onte nds the C om m i tte e inte rpre te d, ra the r tha n ignore d, W

r ight
. B ut the C om m itte e wa s a le rte d to W

right by W awoc k and did not m e n t ion the c a se in its de c i sion or m e ntion W right’s “ c le ar a

nd unm ista

ka ble ” sta nda rd a t a ll. So, we
a gre e with the distric t c ourt’ s c onc lusion tha t the C om m itte e re c ogniz e d a

pplic a ble la w a nd the n ignore d it. B . The Gov e rning Law

is W e ll De fine d, E xplic i t, and C le arly A pplic able C SI ne xt a

rgue s W r ight i s not c le arly

a pplic a ble be c a use it m ight only

a pply to sta tutory disc rim inat ion c la im s, not sta tutory la bor c la i m s. B ut e ve ry

c ourt to have disc usse d the issue ha s re c ogniz e d W right ’ s a pplic a tion to other statutory
c la im s. Se e

, e .g. , Gilbe rt v . Donahoe , 751 F.3d 303, 307–10 (5th C ir. 2014) (FM LA); J

onite s v . Ex e lon C

orp. , 522 F.3d 721, 725 (7th C ir. 2008) (FLSA); O’Brie n v . Tow n of Agaw am , 350 F.3d 279, 284–86 (1st C ir. 2003) (FLSA) ; Vasse r man v . He nry

May o N e w hall Me morial Hosp. , 65 F. Supp. 3d 932, 964–65 (C .D. C a l. 2014) (C a lifornia wa ge and hour la

w c la im s ); Martine

z v . J . Fle tc he r C re ame r & Son, Inc
. , No. C V 10-0968 PSG (FM O x), 2010 W L 3359372, *3 (C .D. C a l. Aug. 13, 2010) (FLSA a nd C a lifornia

sta tutory c l a im s). B y e m p ha siz ing the nature of the sta tute , C SI m ista

ke s the right a

t issue . An
a gre e m e nt to a

rbitrate sta

tutory c la im s is not a

wa ive r of the sta

tute ’ s substa

ntive

5rights, but ra the r a wa ive r of the right “ t o se e k re lie f from a c ourt in the first insta nc e .” 14 Pe nn Plaza LLC v . Py e tt , 556 U.S. 247, 265–66 (2009). C . The C B A Doe s Not Provide

a C le ar W aiv e r The C B A doe s not provide tha t an y sta t utory c la im

is a rbitra ble , nor la

te r inc o rpora te any

of the sta tute s at issue
. M a

king no re fe re nc e to suc h c la i m s ne c e ssa rily fa lls short of a

n e xplic it sta

te m e nt c onc e rning the m . Se e , e . g. , Ibarra v
. UPS , 695 F.3d 354, 356–60 (5th C ir. 2012) (noting c irc uit a gre e m e nt tha t a C B A
m ust a t le a st “ ide ntify

the spe c ific sta

tute s the a gre e m e nt purports to inc orpora te or inc l ude an

arbitrat ion c la

use tha t e xplic itly

re fe rs to sta

tutory c la im s” to provide a c le ar an d unm ista

k a ble wa ive r). In light of the

la c k of re fe re n c e , C SI a rgue s tha t the pa rtie s’ historic a l pra c tic e c an

provide a “ c le ar and unm ista

ka ble ” wa ive r. Ne i the r historic a l pra c tic e nor the pa rtie s’ une xpre s se d inte nt c an fulfill this sta nda rd. C B A wa ive rs of the right to a judic i a l forum

m ust be “ e xplic itly

sta t e d.” W r ight , 525 U.S. a

t 80. C SI fina l ly

argue s tha

t be c a use the C B A spe c ifie s a

rbitra tion for “ a ll grie va nc e s or que stions” in dispute , tha t “ a l l” provide s a c le ar and unm ista ka ble
wa ive r. Just a s in W

right , “ grie va

nc e s or que stions” c ould m e an those grie va

nc e s or que stions unde r the c ontra c t. Se e W right , 525 U.S. a

t 80. “ All” doe s not e xpa nd the m e aning of grie va

nc e s or que stions.
6

### III. Co n c lu sio n

A C B A re quire m e nt to a

rbitrate a sta tutory c l a im m ust be e xplic itly

sta te d. The La bor-M ana ge m e nt C om

m itte e m anife stly

disre ga rde d la w whe n it ignore d this m andat e and subje c te d W awoc k’ s sta

tutory c la im s to a

rbitration. Affirm e d.

7