Opinion ID: 1223842
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Six-Year Statute of Limitation for Contracts in AS 09.10.050(1) Applies to ASEA's Alleged Breach of the Collective Bargaining Agreement.

Text: In our decision in Reed, we construed Reed's cause of action to allege a breach of the collective bargaining agreement between the Municipality and Reed's union, as well as a cause of action under AS 23.05.140(b). We held that while the latter claim was governed by the limitation period contained in AS 09.10.070(3), the six-year statute of limitation for contract actions contained in AS 09.10.050 applied to Reed's claim for breach of contract. Id. at 1185. This case falls squarely under Reed. Quinn did not attach a copy of the collective bargaining agreement to his complaint, as did Reed. Id. However, he did attach a copy to his motion for summary judgment, and he argued below that the six-year statute of limitation applies. Also, as in Reed, [b]oth parties agree that they are bound by the collective bargaining agreement. Id. Thus, it is fair to construe Quinn's complaint as alleging a breach of the collective bargaining agreement, and to hold that the six-year statute of limitation for contracts applies. Id. Quinn filed his complaint in February 1994. He seeks unpaid overtime dating back to 1990. Quinn's claim for unpaid overtime under a breach of contract theory is not barred by AS 09.10.050(1). However, as discussed supra, Quinn's timely filing under the contract statute of limitation does not rekindle unpaid liquidated damages claims forever barred by the statute of limitation in AWHA. Quinn incorrectly asserts that because he satisfied the contract statute of limitation, he may seek all wages and penalties for up to six years. He may seek full recovery of all unpaid overtime, [10] but whatever penalties he is entitled to under AWHA are subject to the statute of limitation in AS 23.10.130. There is no merit to ASEA's argument that Quinn's breach of contract action is governed by the six-month statute of limitation in the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). See 29 U.S.C. § 160(b). In Del-Costello v. Int'l Bhd. of Teamsters, 462 U.S. 151, 103 S.Ct. 2281, 76 L.Ed.2d 476 (1983), the United States Supreme Court held that the NLRA's six-month statute of limitation applies to hybrid claims in which the employee has a cause of action against the employer for breach of a collective bargaining agreement, and against his or her union for breach of its duty of fair representation. Id. at 169-70, 103 S.Ct. at 2293-94; see Cabarga Cruz v. Fundacion Educativa Ana G. Mendez Inc., 822 F.2d 188, 191 (1st Cir.1987) (The typical hybrid action involves a claim that the employer violated the collective bargaining agreement and the union failed to handle properly the grievance of the plaintiff-employee who was injured as a result of the employer's action.). However, when an employee only sues the employer for breach of a collective bargaining agreement, the state statute of limitation for contract actions applies. See International Union v. Hoosier Cardinal Corp., 383 U.S. 696, 704-07, 86 S.Ct. 1107, 1112-14, 16 L.Ed.2d 192 (1966); Cabarga Cruz, 822 F.2d at 191 (If a claim represents, in essence, purely a breach of contract action against the employer, the proper limitations period is not the six month period established by DelCostello, but rather that provided by state law for breach of contract actions.). Quinn is suing ASEA for breach of contract, and therefore AS 09.10.070(3) applies.