Issue
The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, recently considered the issue of whether an arbitration decision under a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) precluded an employee from pursuing a claim that his employer discharged him in retaliation for reporting a violation with the Division of Occupational Safety and Health of the State Department of Industrial (Cal-OSHA). (Taylor v. Lockheed Martin Corp. (2003 WL 22700897))
Facts
Employee, Walter Taylor, a union member, filed a lawsuit claiming his employer Lockheed Martin Corporation, discharged him in violation of Labor Code section 6310 for filing a complaint with Cal-OSHA. Lockheed asked the trial court to dismiss the lawsuit, arguing that Employee could not pursue his lawsuit because, pursuant to the CBA, an arbitrator had determined that Lockheed fired employee for just cause. The trial court agreed and Employee appealed.
Appellate Court Decision
Under the legal doctrine of collateral estoppel, a party may not relitigate an issue that was already litigated or decided in a prior proceeding, such as in another lawsuit, an administrative hearing, or an arbitration. However, this doctrine is limited when the issue was decided in a labor arbitration under a CBA. The arbitration decision will prevent relitigation of issues, “only if the CBA contained a clear and unmistakable waiver of the employee’s right to file a lawsuit on [a] statutory claim.” Here, Lockheed did not present the trial court with a copy of the CBA; therefore, there was “no evidence that the CBA contained a clear and unmistakable waiver of a union member’s individual right to sue for retaliatory discharge under section 6310.” Thus, the trial court should not have dismissed Employee’s lawsuit. The Court of Appeal sent the case back for further proceedings.
It should be noted that the Court made clear that its decision applies where an employee is claiming a violation of a statute (e.g. Labor Code section 6310), not necessarily where an employee is claiming violation of the common law.
It should also be noted that this decision is consistent with the Third District’s decision in Camargo v. Portland Cement Co. (2001) 86 Cal. App. 4th 995. See our Legal Alert, “Arbitration Under Collective Bargaining Agreement Does Not Bar FEHA Claim,” January 31, 2001.
Legal Alert Email Disclaimer
Legal Alerts are published by Kronick Moskovitz Tiedemann & Girard as a timely reporting service to alert clients and other friends of recent changes in case law, opinions or codes. This alert does not represent the legal opinion of the firm or any member of the firm on the issues described, and the information contained in this publication should not be construed as legal advice. Should further analysis or explanation of the subject matter be required, please contact the attorney with whom you normally consult.