Court Opinion

ID: 9495756
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 16:09:39.071858+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:57:11.018610
License: Public Domain

T.G. NELSON, Circuit Judge,
dissenting:
I respectfully dissent. Determining whether California law applies to Gregory requires interpreting the collective bargaining agreement, which triggers preemption. Thus, I would affirm the district court.
California Labor Code Section 510, the section under which Gregory brings the claims in question, expressly does not apply to employees “working pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement pursuant to Section 514.” 1 Section 514 sets forth the precise characteristics of collective bargaining agreements that place employees outside the reach of Section 510. The collective bargaining agreement must: (1) “expressly provide[ ] for the wages, hours of work, and working conditions of employees”; and it must (2) “provide[ ] premium wage rates for all overtime hours worked and a regular hourly rate of pay for those employees of not less than 30 percent more than the state minimum wage.”2
On its face, the collective bargaining agreement between SCIE and Gregory’s union appears to meet Section 514’s requirements. It expressly provides for “wages, hours of work, and working conditions.” In addition, it provides wage rates significantly greater than 30% over California’s minimum wage;3 and correspondingly high premium wage rates for overtime work. Thus, on its face, the collective bargaining agreement governing Gregory’s employment seems to except him from the requirements of Section 510.
The interesting twist in this ease is that SCIE’s rather novel interpretation of the agreement does not comport with the requirements of Section 514. As applied by the defendant, the agreement requires overtime compensation only when an employee works on one -production for more than eight hours in a day or forty hours in a week. SCIE will not pay overtime if an employee works the same number of hours on different productions. As applied by SCIE, then, the collective bargaining agreement does not meet Section 514’s *1055requirement that premium pay be provided for all hours worked in excess of eight in a day or forty in a week.4
The majority is willing to accept SCIE’s interpretation of the collective bargaining agreement and to proceed from there. I disagree with the majority because, under the collective bargaining agreement, it is the province of a “neutral arbitrator assigned from [a designated panel] of neutral arbitrators” to offer the definitive interpretation of the collective bargaining agreement, not a single party to that agreement.5 SCIE’s interpretation of the collective bargaining agreement may very well be incorrect. If that is the case, the collective bargaining agreement is likely to satisfy Section 514’s requirements, leaving Gregory solely with a collectively bargained remedy. Given this distinct possibility, I believe that, as a matter of labor policy and of law, Gregory must pursue his collectively bargained rights first.
Congress passed the Labor Management Relations Act in order to: “promot[e] the arbitration of labor contract disputes [and] securfe] the uniform interpretation of labor contracts.”6 Requiring Gregory to seek a definitive interpretation of the collective bargaining agreement comports with this policy goal. Moreover, requiring him to do so does not tread on California’s “authority to enact minimum labor standards.” 7 If an arbitrator deems SCIE’s interpretation correct, the collective bargaining agreement would indeed fail to satisfy the requirements of Section 514, and Gregory would have a strong and clear-cut state law claim under Section 510.
As a matter of law, Gregory must pursue his collectively bargained remedies first: determining whether the collective bargaining agreement meets the requirements of Section 514 is an inquiry that is “inextricably intertwined with consideration of the terms of the labor contract.”8 Thus, the LMRA preempts the question.9 I therefore dissent.

. Cal. Lab.Code § 510.

. Cal. Lab.Code § 514.

. Defendants assert that California’s minimum wage during the relevant period was $6.75 per hour, though they do not cite anything to support this. Assuming their assertion is correct, minimum wage plus 30% would be $8.78. The lowest hourly rate listed in the collective bargaining agreement is $25.05.

. See Cal. Lab.Code § 514.

. The collective bargaining agreement fails to specify how work time should be calculated in order to trigger overtime. However, it clearly contemplates payment for overtime work. It includes detailed descriptions of various colorfully-named kinds of overtime (from plain ''overtime” to “golden hours”). Thus, in order to determine when overtime must be paid, one must look beyond the plain language of the agreement to such things as industry practice, the course of bargaining among the parties, the agreement as a whole, etc. In other words, one must interpret the agreement.

. Balcorta v. Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp., 208 F.3d 1102, 1108-09 (9th Cir.2000).

. Id. at 1108; Allis-Chalmers Corp. v. Lueck, 471 U.S. 202, 211-12, 105 S.Ct. 1904, 85 L.Ed.2d 206 (1985).

. Firestone v. S. Cal. Gas Co., 219 F.3d 1063, 1065 (9th Cir.2000) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted) (holding that dispute could not be resolved without interpreting the collective bargaining agreement where dispute turned on whether plaintiffs were receiving a “premium wage rate” for overtime and were therefore exempted from Section 510’s requirements).

. Id. at 1065-66.