Opinion ID: 2625080
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Summary judgment was proper because employees whose contracts are governed by a collective bargaining agreement must exhaust contractual remedies prior to filing suit.

Text: We have consistently held that employees must first exhaust their contractual or administrative remedies, or show that they were excused from doing so, before pursuing a direct action against their employer. [9] Accordingly, summary judgment was appropriate on Grant's claims because he was not excused from pursuing the available administrative redress. Our decision in Cozzen v. Municipality of Anchorage controls the analysis in this case: the facts are very similar, the relevant language of the CBA is identical, and the procedural history is the same. [10] Cozzen involved a wrongful termination suit filed by an APD officer who was terminated because he could no longer meet APD's minimum hearing standards for sworn officers. [11] Interpreting the same language from the predecessor of the CBA governing this case, we affirmed the superior court's grant of summary judgment based on Cozzen's failure to exhaust his contractual remedies. [12] Grant's claims rely on his contractual rights to employment. The CBA provides his rights and remedies. Because he fails to persuasively distinguish Cozzen instead relying on Beard v. Baum [13] and Casey v. City of Fairbanks, [14] which Cozzen specifically distinguishes [15] he cannot prevail. Accordingly, the superior court correctly granted summary judgment on Grant's contractual claims of breach of contract, wrongful termination, and violation of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. [16]