View
221
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
7/25/2019 Bernard v. Alaska Airlines, Inc., Alaska (2016)
1/21
Notice: This opinion is subject to correction before publication in the PACIFICREPORTER.
Readers are requested to bring errors to the attention of the Clerk of the Appellate Courts,
303 K Street, Anchorage, Alaska 99501, phone (907) 264-0608, fax (907) 264-0878, email
corrections@akcourts.us.
THESUPREMECOURTOFTHESTATEOFALASKA
PIERREBERNARD,
Appellant,
v.
ALASKAAIRLINES,INC.,
Appellee.
)
) SupremeCourtNo.S-15592
SuperiorCourtNo.3AN-13-08887CI
O
P
I
N
I
O
N
No.7082-
February12,2016
)
)
))
)
))
)
AppealfromtheSuperiorCourtoftheStateofAlaska,Third
JudicialDistrict,Anchorage,FrankA.Pfiffner,Judge.
Appearances: Vikram N. Chaobal, Anchorage, and
FrederickW.Triem,Petersburg,forAppellant.Gregory
S.FisherandElizabethP.Hodes,DavisWrightTremaineLLP,Anchorage,forAppellee.
Before:
Fabe,ChiefJustice,Winfree,Stowers,Maassen,and
Bolger,Justices.
MAASSEN,Justice.
I. INTRODUCTION
A former airline employee sued his former employer for wrongfulterminationwithoutfirstattemptingtoarbitratehisclaimsundertheprovisionsofa
collectivebargainingagreementsubjecttothefederalRailwayLaborAct.Thesuperior
court
dismissed
theemployeescomplaintforfailuretoexhausthis
contractual
remedies.
Italsodeniedhimleavetoamendhiscomplaintasecondtimetoaddaclaimagainst
mailto:corrections@akcourts.usmailto:corrections@akcourts.us7/25/2019 Bernard v. Alaska Airlines, Inc., Alaska (2016)
2/21
hisunionforbreachingitsdutyoffairrepresentationonthegroundthatthesix-month
limitationsperiodforsuchclaimshadexpired. Weholdthattheemployeesrightto
bring his claims instatecourtwasnotclearlyandunmistakablywaivedunder the
collectivebargainingagreementandhethereforeshouldhavebeenallowedtopursue
them. Weagreewiththesuperiorcourt,however,thattheemployeesclaimthatthe
unionbreacheditsdutyoffairrepresentationwastime-barred. Wethereforeaffirmin
partandreverseinpartthejudgmentofthesuperiorcourt.
II. FACTSANDPROCEEDINGS
InJune2011 Alaska Airlines charged that Pierre Bernard, oneof its
baggagehandlers,hadtakenpartindraftingandsendingathreateningtextmessageto
a co-worker and had thendeleteda recordedconversationrelevant to the ensuing
investigation. ThecompanyterminatedBernardsemployment.
Theemploymentstermsandconditionsweregovernedbyacollective
bargainingagreement(sometimesabbreviatedCBA)negotiatedbyBernardsunion,
theInternationalAssociationofMachinistsandAerospaceWorkers,pursuanttothe
federalRailwayLaborAct(RLA).1 Thecollectivebargainingagreementprovideda
three-stageprocessforgrievingterminationdecisions. Thefirsttwostagesconsistedof
aninitialhearingandasecondaryhearing,eachpresidedoverbyarepresentative
ofAlaskaAirlines,withaunionrepresentativeinattendancetorepresenttheemployee.
TheresultofasecondaryhearingcouldbeappealedtotheSystemBoardofAdjustment,
athree-memberarbitrationpanelconsistingofaCompanymember,aUnionmember[,]
andaneutralreferee.2
1 45U.S.C.151-188(2012).
2 See 45U.S.C.153(i)(2012)([F]ailingtoreachanadjustment[,]. ..
disputesmaybereferredbypetitionofthepartiesorbyeitherpartytotheappropriate (continued...)
- 2 - 7082
7/25/2019 Bernard v. Alaska Airlines, Inc., Alaska (2016)
3/21
Bernard initiatedthe grievanceprocess through hisunion,andover thenext
twomonthsAlaskaAirlinesheldtwohearings,eachtimeinthepresenceofaunion
representative. Thepresidingcompanyofficers issuedwrittendecisionsafterboth
hearingsupholdingBernardsterminationthoughtheseconddecision,inAugust,
offeredhimtheopportunitytoresigninlieuoftermination,anofferhedidnotaccept.
AfewweeksaftertheAugustdecisionaunionrepresentativewroteto
Bernardinforminghimthat[i]ftheUnionbringsyourcasetoanarbitration,thereis
paperworkyoumustfillout,andadvisinghimthathemayacquirealawyeratany
time.TheunionswrittennoticetoBernardthatithaddecidednottoappealisdated
November14,2011,nearlytwomonthsafterthe30-dayappealdeadlinehadexpired.
TheunioninformedBernardthatithadthoroughlyreviewedhiscase,concludedthat
wecouldnotsustainourpositionbeforetheSystemBoardofAdjustment,andclosed
itsfile.
InAugust2013,twoyearsaftertheunappealeddecisionofthesecondary
hearing,BernardfiledacomplaintagainstAlaskaAirlinesinthesuperiorcourt. He
allegedabackgroundtohistermination: thatin2009hehadfiledasexualharassment
complaintagainstasupervisorandwasostracizedasaresult;thathewaslaterunfairly
disciplinedafteraco-workerimposeduponhimwithinappropriatepersonaldemands;
andthattheallegedlythreateningtextmessageforwhichhewasdischargedin2011had
actuallybeensentinjestinresponsetoahostileandthreateningtextfromanother
employee. Heallegedthathisterminationwasinretaliationforhisreportsofsexual
harassmentandthereforeviolatedthecovenantofgoodfaithandfairdealing.
2(...continued)
divisionoftheAdjustmentBoardwithafullstatementofthefactsandallsupportingdatabearinguponthedisputes.).
- 3 - 7082
7/25/2019 Bernard v. Alaska Airlines, Inc., Alaska (2016)
4/21
AlaskaAirlinesfiledamotiontodismissunderAlaskaCivilRule12(b)(1),3
arguingthat(1)theRLApreemptedBernardsclaim;and(2)evenifnotpreempted,his
claimwasprecludedbecausehehadfailedtoexhaustavailableremediesunderthe
collectivebargainingagreement.
Bernardopposed the motion and filedanamendedcomplaint, adding
allegationsthatAlaskaAirlineshadviolatedastateemploymentdiscriminationstatute4
andpublicpolicy. AlaskaAirlinesreneweditsmotiontodismissontheexhaustion-of
remediestheory,arguingthatbecausethecollectivebargainingagreementincorporated
thecompanysanti-discriminationpolicies,Bernardwasrequiredtoseekreliefthrough
contractualremediesevenforstatutoryclaims,whichhehadnotdone.
Bernardmovedforleavetofileasecondamendedcomplaint,thistimeto
addaclaimthattheunionhadbreacheditsdutyoffairrepresentationbyfailingtonotify
himofitsdecisionnottopursuearbitrationwiththeSystemBoardofAdjustmentuntil
aftertheappealdeadline. ThesuperiorcourtdeniedBernardleavetoaddthisclaim,
concludingthatitwasbarredbythesix-monthstatuteoflimitationsforhybridclaims. 5
3 Everydefense,inlaworfact,toaclaimforreliefinanypleading,whether
a claim, counterclaim, cross-claim, or third-party claim, shall be asserted in theresponsivepleadingtheretoifoneisrequired,exceptthatthefollowingdefensesmayat
theoptionofthepleaderbemadebymotion:(1)lackofjurisdictionoverthesubjectmatter.... AlaskaR.Civ.P.12(b)(1).
4 See AS18.80.220(a) ([I]tisunlawful for . . . (4)an employer, labor
organization, or employmentagency todischarge,expel,orotherwisediscriminate
against a person because the person has opposed any practices forbidden under
AS18.80.200-18.80.280orbecausethepersonhasfiledacomplaint, testified,orassistedinaproceedingunderthischapter.).
5 Ahybridclaiminthiscontextisoneinwhichanemployeemustprove
boththattheemployerbreachedaprovisionofthecollectivebargainingagreementand(continued...)
- 4 - 7082
7/25/2019 Bernard v. Alaska Airlines, Inc., Alaska (2016)
5/21
ThesuperiorcourtalsodismissedBernardsstatelawclaimsunderRule
12(b)(1)forlackofsubjectmatterjurisdiction. Itfirstdecidedthathisstatelawclaims
werenotpre-emptedtotheextentthattheypleadanindependentstatelawclaimfor
retaliatorydischargebutwerepreempted[t]otheextenttheyrestoncontractualrights
thatMr.BernardenjoyedundertheCBA. Thecourtwentontoconcludethattothe
extent not preempted, Bernards state law claims were nonetheless subject to the
mandatoryarbitrationprovisionsofthecollectivebargainingagreementbecausehehad
clearlyandunmistakablywaivedhisrighttopursuejudicialremediesinstead.Thecourt
held that he had a personal right to submit his claim to the National Railroad
AdjustmentBoard(NRAB)buthadnotdoneso,andthathisallegedignoranceofthis
avenuewasnotanexcuse.
Bernardappeals.
III. STANDARDSOFREVIEW
ThesuperiorcourtdismissedBernardsactionforlackofsubjectmatter
jurisdictionpursuanttoRule12(b)(1). Wereviewdenovoasuperiorcourtsdecision
todismissacomplaintfor lackofsubjectmatterjurisdiction.6 Inexercisingour
5(...continued)thattheunionbreacheditsdutyoffairrepresentationinordertoprevail. Schaub v.
K&LDistribs., Inc.,115P.3d555,564 (Alaska 2005)(recognizingsix-monthlimitations
periodforsuchclaims);see also 29U.S.C.160(b)(2006)([N]ocomplaintshallissue
baseduponanyunfairlaborpracticeoccurringmorethansixmonthspriortothefilingofthechargewiththeBoard.) . Ahybridclaimmaybebroughtagainsttheunion,the
employer,orboth. Schaub,115P.3dat565.
6 Healy Lake Vill. v. Mt. McKinley Bank,322P.3d866,871(Alaska2014)
(quotingRuckle v. Anchorage Sch. Dist.,85P.3d1030,1033(Alaska2004)).
- 5 - 7082
7/25/2019 Bernard v. Alaska Airlines, Inc., Alaska (2016)
6/21
independentjudgment,wewilladopttheruleoflawthatismostpersuasiveinlightof
precedent,reason,andpolicy.7
Thisappealalsorequiresustointerpretacollectivebargainingagreement.
Contractinterpretationpresentsaquestionoflawthatwereviewdenovo.8When
interpretingcontracts,thegoalistogiveeffecttothereasonableexpectationsofthe
parties.9 Indeterminingtheintentofthepartiesthecourtlookstothewrittencontract
aswellasextrinsicevidenceregardingthepartiesintentatthetimethecontractwas
made.10Wherethereisconflictingextrinsicevidencethecourt,ratherthanthejury,
mustnonethelessdecide thequestionofmeaningexceptwherethewrittenlanguage, read
incontext,isreasonablysusceptibletobothassertedmeanings. 11
Finally,thisappealrequiresustointerprettheRLA.Wedecidequestions
oflaw,includingstatutoryinterpretation,usingourindependentjudgment. Wewill
adoptthemostpersuasiveruleoflawinlightofprecedent,reason,andpolicy.12 This
7 Id.(quotingJohn v. Baker,982P.2d738,744(Alaska1999)).
8 Larsen v.MunicipalityofAnchorage,993P.2d428,431(Alaska1999);seealso Alaska Hous. Fin. Corp. v. Salvucci,950P.2d1116,1119(Alaska1997).
9 Larsen,993P.2dat431(quotingStepanov v. Homer Elec. Assn,814P.2d731,734(Alaska1991)).
10 Municipality of Anchorage v. Gentile,922P.2d248,256(Alaska1996).
11
Johnson v. Schaub,867P.2d812,818(Alaska1994)(quotingAlaskaDiversified Contractors, Inc. v. Lower Kuskokwim Sch. Dist.,778P.2d581,584(Alaska
1989)).
12 Donahue v. Ledgends, Inc.,331P.3d342,346(Alaska2014)(internal
citationsomitted).
- 6 - 7082
7/25/2019 Bernard v. Alaska Airlines, Inc., Alaska (2016)
7/21
requiresus,wheninterpretingstatutes,tolooktothemeaningofthelanguage,the
legislativehistory,andthepurposeofthestatute.13
IV. DISCUSSION
A. BernardsClaimsWereNotSubjectToArbitration.
ThesuperiorcourtruledthatBernardsclaimswerepreempted to theextent
theyreliedonthecontractandnotpreemptedtotheextenttheyexistedindependentof
thecontract. Because itwenton tohold thatBernardwas requiredtoexhausthis
contractualremediesastobothkindsofclaims,itdidnotneedtodifferentiatefurther
betweenthepreemptedclaimsandthenon-preemptedclaims.Butbecauseweholdthat
Bernardwasnot requiredtoexhausthiscontractualremedies,wemustbeginbydeciding
whetheranyofhisclaimswerepreempted.
1. TheRLAdidnotpreemptBernardsstatelawclaims.
TheRLAprovidesamandatoryarbitralmechanismforthepromptand
orderlysettlementof two classes ofdisputes.14 The firstclass,deemed major
disputes,relatestotheformationofcollectiveagreementsoreffortstosecurethem. 15
Thesecondclass,deemedminordisputes,includescontroversiesoverthemeaning
ofanexistingcollectivebargainingagreementinaparticularfactsituation.16 Alaska
AirlinescontendsthattheconflictoverBernardsfiringisaminordisputethatmaybe
13 Id.(quotingASRC Energy Servs. Power & Commcns, LLC v. GoldenValley Elec. Assn,267P.3d1151,1157(Alaska2011)).
14 Hawaiian Airlines, Inc. v. Norris, 512 U.S.246,252 (1994)(quoting
45U.S.C.151a(1988)).
15 Consol. Rail Corp. v. Ry. Labor Execs. Assn,491U.S.299,302(1989)(quotingElgin, J. & E. Ry. Co. v. Burley,325U.S.711,723(1945)).
16 Norris,512U.S.at253(quotingBhd. of R.R. Trainmen v. Chicago River
& Indiana R.R. Co.,353U.S.30,33(1957)).
- 7 - 7082
7/25/2019 Bernard v. Alaska Airlines, Inc., Alaska (2016)
8/21
resolvedonlythroughthemechanismsprovidedbytheRLA,includingthecollective
bargainingagreementsinternalgrievanceprocessculminatinginarbitrationbeforea
SystemBoardofAdjustment. Weagreewiththesuperiorcourt,however,thatthe
underlying conduct for [Bernards] claims [was] that Alaska [Airlines] allegedly
retaliatedagainstMr.Bernardforreportingsexualharassment,andthattheseclaims
werenot preemptedtothe extent theypleadedanindependent statelaw claimfor
retaliatorydischarge.
Asa generalrule,theRLAsmechanismforresolvingminordisputesdoes
notpre-emptcausesofactiontoenforcerightsthatareindependentoftheCBA.17In
thewrongfulterminationcontext,astatelawclaimmaybepre-empted, notbecausethe
RLAbroadlypre-emptsstate-lawclaimsbasedondischargeordiscipline,butbecause
theemployeesclaimwasfirmlyrootedinabreachoftheCBAitself. 18 Butwhenthe
collectivebargainingagreementisnottheonlysourceoftherightagainstwrongful
terminationforexample,whenanemployerhasastatelawobligationnottofirean
employeeforretaliatoryreasonsorinviolationofpublicpolicythestatelawcause
ofactionisnotpreempted. 19
AlaskaAirlinesarguesthatgardenvarietystate-lawclaimsforwrongful
terminationareabsolutelypreemptedundertheRailwayLaborAct.CitingAndrews v.
17 Id. at 256;see also Terminal R.R. Assn of St. Louis v. Bhd. of R.R.
Trainmen,318U.S.1,7(1943)([I]tcannotbethattheminimumrequirementslaiddownbystateauthorityareallsetaside. WeholdthattheenactmentbyCongressofthe
[RLA]wasnotapre-emptionofthefieldofregulatingworkingconditionsthemselves
....).
18 Norris,512U.S.at257(emphasisinoriginal).
19 See Andrews v. Louisville &Nashville R.R. Co.,406U.S.320,324(1972);
Norris,512U.S.at258.
- 8 - 7082
7/25/2019 Bernard v. Alaska Airlines, Inc., Alaska (2016)
9/21
Louisville &Nashville Railroad Co.,itcontendsthatfederallawrequiresthisconclusion
and that subsequentcaseshave applied little more than glossover anotherwise
sweepingrule.20 ButAndrews didnotbroadlylimitindependentstatelawclaimsfor
wrongfultermination.21 InAndrews itwasconcededbyallthattheonly sourceof[the
employees]rightnottobedischarged,andthereforetotreatanallegeddischargeasa
wrongfulonethatentitleshimtodamages,isthecollective-bargainingagreement
betweentheemployerandtheunion.22
WediscussedthisissueinNorcon, Inc. v. Kotowski,inwhichweobserved
thatthefederalLaborManagementRelationsAct23 doesnotpreemptstatelawclaims
when theyareneither foundedonrights createdbyaCBAnordependentonthe
20 CompareAndrews, 406U.S.at324([W]rongfuldischargeimpliessome
sortofstatutoryorcontractualstandardthatmodifiesthetraditionalcommon-lawrule
thatacontractofemploymentisterminablebyeitherpartyatwill....[T]heonlysourceofpetitionersrightnottobedischarged...isthecollective-bargainingagreement
betweentheemployerandtheunion.),with Norris 512U.S.at258(Here,incontrast
[toAndrews],theCBAisnottheonlysourceofrespondentsrightnottobedischargedwrongfully.).
21 Cf. Norris 512U.S.at258(notingthatRLAdoesnotpreemptallstatelaw
claimsforwrongfultermination);Fort Halifax Packing Co. v. Coyne,482U.S.1,21(1987)(notingthatpreemptionofemploymentstandardsshouldnotbelightlyinferred
inthisarea,sincetheestablishmentoflaborstandardsfallswithinthetraditionalpolice
poweroftheState);Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. Buell,480U.S.557,565(1987) ([N]otwithstanding the strong policies encouraging arbitration, different
considerationsapplywheretheemployeesclaimisbasedonrightsarisingoutofa
statutedesignedtoprovideminimumsubstantiveguaranteestoindividualworkers.(quotingBarrentine v. Ark.-Best Freight Sys., Inc.,450U.S.728,737(1981))).
22 Andrews,406U.S.at324(emphasisadded).
23 29U.S.C.141-44,167,&171-87(2012).
- 9 - 7082
7/25/2019 Bernard v. Alaska Airlines, Inc., Alaska (2016)
10/21
analysisor interpretationof theCBA.24 Norcon involved theLaborManagement
RelationsActratherthantheRLA,buttheUnitedStatesSupremeCourtappliesthat
samepreemptionanalysistoboth,sowedothesame.25WeconcludedinNorconthat
[s]tatesarefreetocreateandenforcecausesofactionthatvestrightsinworkers,so
longastheserightscanbeadjudicatedwithouthavingtointerpretcollectivebargaining
agreements.26 Wespecificallyaddressedanemployeesclaimthatherterminationwas
duetosexualdiscriminationintheworkplaceinviolationofAS18.80.220,concluding
thattheclaimwasnotpreemptedbecause[t]hequestionofwhether[theemployees]
transferandterminationviolatedAS18.80.220wasaquestionofstatelaw,entirely
independentofanyunderstandingembodiedinthecollective-bargainingagreement. 27
We held that [t]he right to a non-discriminatory workplace conferred upon [the
employee]byAS18.80.220couldnotbewaivedbyanycontrarycontractualprovision
andthereforenoneedexiststoconsulttheCBAtodetermine[therights]meaning.28
WewentontoconcludethatourdecisionwasconsistentwiththeSupremeCourts
reasoninginHawaiian Airlines, Inc. v. Norris,inwhichtheCourtobservedthatpurely
factualquestionsaboutanemployersconductandmotivesdonotrequireinterpretation
oftheCBAtoanswer.29
24 Norcon, Inc. v. Kotowski,971P.2d158,165(Alaska1999).
25 Norris,512U.S.at260.
26 Norcon,971P.2dat164.
27 Id. at165(quotingLivadas v. Bradshaw,512U.S.107,125(1994)).
28 Id.
29 Id. at166(citingNorris,512U.S.at261).
- 10- 7082
7/25/2019 Bernard v. Alaska Airlines, Inc., Alaska (2016)
11/21
In this case,Bernards firstamended complaint raised threestate law
claims:(1)wrongfulterminationinviolationofAS18.80.220;(2)wrongfultermination
inviolationofpublicpolicy;30and(3)wrongfulterminationinbreachofthecovenant
ofgoodfaithandfairdealing.31 Eachclaim,asthesuperiorcourtnoted,allegedthesame
underlyingconduct: thatAlaskaAirlinesretaliatedagainstBernardforhavingreported
sexualharassment.Thefirsttwoclaimsdependonstatelawandtheemployersmotives
not the terms of thecollectivebargaining agreement andare thereforenot
preemptedbytheRLA. Thethirdclaim,for breachoftheimpliedcovenant,does
dependinpartonthepartiescontractualrelationship.32 ButweheldinNorcon thatsuch
claimsarenotpreemptedeither,atleastinthecontextofclaimsforretaliatorydischarge.
Weheldthat[n]othingintheCBAcouldhavealtered,circumscribed,ordefinedthe
employees right to report safety violations, drawn from state public policy, and
[b]ecausethecontoursofthisrightarenotdefinedthroughthebargainingprocess,they
canbetracedoutwithoutanyreferencetotheCBA. 33
30
We note that Bernards public policy-based and statutory claims areprobablyredundant.See Reust v. Alaska Petroleum Contractors, Inc.,127P.3d807,813
n.13(Alaska2005)(notingthatwehavetypicallydeclinedtorecognizeindependenttorts based on contravention of public policy where there are adequate legal
alternatives).
31 Bernardalsoassertedacountforpunitivedamagesbasedonallegedly
outrageousconduct,butrecoveryofpunitivedamagesdependedonproofofoneofhisthreesubstantiveclaims. See DeNardo v. GCI Commcn Corp.,983P.2d1288,1292
(Alaska1999)(Apunitivedamagesclaimcannotstandalone.).
32 See Castle Props., Inc. v. Wasilla Lake Church of the Nazarene,347P.3d990,997(Alaska2015)(UnderAlaskalaw,everycontracthasanimpliedcovenantof
goodfaithandfairdealing....).
33 Norcon,971P.2dat167.
- 11- 7082
7/25/2019 Bernard v. Alaska Airlines, Inc., Alaska (2016)
12/21
Anemployeesrighttoreportsexualharassmentwithoutfearofretaliation
bytheemployerisgroundedinthesamepublicpolicywediscussedinNorcon,made
explicitinthesamestatute,AS18.80.220.34 Andstatepublicpolicyprovidesthesame
remedyintheformofaclaimforretaliatorydischarge,aclaimthatdependslargelyon
proofof theemployersactionsandmotivationsratherthananinterpretationofthe
collectivebargainingagreement. 35 Becausethecollectivebargainingagreementisnot
theonlysourceoftherightagainstwrongfuldischargeatthebaseofBernardsthree
claims,theRLAdidnotpreemptthem. 36
34 AS18.80.220(a)(4)providesthatitisunlawfulfor...anemployer...to
discharge,expel,orotherwisediscriminateagainstapersonbecausethepersonhasopposedanypracticesforbiddenunderAS18.80.20018.80.280.AS18.80.220(a)(1)
bars workplace discrimination on the basis of sex; it applies to claims of sexual
harassment. French v. Jadon, Inc.,911P.2d20,28(Alaska1996). Discharginganemployeeinretaliationforthereportingofsexualharassmentisthereforeaviolationof
AS18.80.220(a)(4).
35 As noted above, the collective bargaining agreement at issue here
incorporatedAlaskaAirlinespolicyagainstemploymentdiscrimination,andBernards
discriminationclaimcouldbecharacterizedasbeingfoundedonthecontract.Butthe
factthataclaiminvolvesaviolationofaprivatelyenforcedpolicyisirrelevanttotheextentthatastatuteindependentlyfavorsthesamepolicy. See Knight v. Am. Guard &
Alert, Inc.,714P.2d788,792(Alaska1986);Pub. Safety Emps. Assn v. State,658P.2d
769,774-75(Alaska1983).
36 See, e.g., Owen v. Carpenters Dist. Council, 161 F.3d 767, 775-76(4thCir.1998)(predictingthatMarylandlawwouldrecognizeaclaimforwrongful
discharge basedonanemployees complaintsof sexualharassment andholdingthatsuch
aclaimisnotpreemptedbytheLMRAbecauseitprimarilyconcernstheconductofthe
employeeandtheconductandmotivationoftheemployerratherthananinterpretationofthecollectivebargainingagreement);Romero v. Mason & Hanger-Silas Mason Co.,739F.Supp.1472,1475-77(D.N.M.1990)(notingthatNewMexicorecognizescauses
ofactionforwrongfulandretaliatoryterminationbasedoncomplainingaboutsafety
violations and about sexual harassment and that the claim is independentof the(continued...)
- 12- 7082
7/25/2019 Bernard v. Alaska Airlines, Inc., Alaska (2016)
13/21
2 TheCBAdidnotclearlyandunmistakablywaivetherighttosueincourt.
Anemployeemayhavetherighttopursueaclaiminstatecourtbecause
theclaimisnotpreemptedbytheRLAandstillwaivethat rightbyagreeingto
arbitratesuchclaimsinstead.37 Bernardarguesthatthecollectivebargainingagreement
atissueheredoesnotwaivehisrighttopursuehisstatelawclaimsincourt,andwe
agree.
Wewillnotinferfromageneralcontractualprovisionthattheparties
intended towaivea statutorily protected rightunless the undertaking is explicitly
stated. Moresuccinctly,thewaivermustbeclear and unmistakable.38 InHammond
weadoptedthetwo-prongedtestusedbytheSecondandFourthCircuits,andlaterthe
United States SupremeCourt, for findinga clear and unmistakablewaiver: The
contractmusteither(1)containanarbitrationclauseincludingaprovisionwhereby
employeesspecificallyagreetosubmitallfederalcausesofactionarisingoutoftheir
36
(...continued)collectivebargainingagreement,andholdingthattheclaimisthereforenotpreempted
bytheLMRA);Foster v. Albertsons, Inc.,835P.2d720,726-27(Mont.1992)(notingthatMontanahasrecognizedacommonlawcauseofactionforretaliatorydischarge
relatedtosexualharassmentandthatprovingsuchaclaiminvolvespurelyfactual
questions that pertain[] to the conduct of the [employee] and the conduct andmotivationofthe[employer]ratherthanturn[ing]onthemeaningofanytermofthe
collectivebargainingagreement,andholdingthattheclaimisthereforenotpreemptedbytheLMRA).
37
Hammond v. State, Dept of Transp. & Pub. Facilities,107P.3d871,877(Alaska2005).
38 Metro. Edison Co. v. NLRB,460U.S.693,708(1983)(emphasisadded);
see also Wright v. Universal Mar. Serv. Corp.,525U.S.70,79(1998)([A]nyCBArequirementtoarbitrate[astatutoryclaim]mustbeparticularlyclear.).
- 13- 7082
7/25/2019 Bernard v. Alaska Airlines, Inc., Alaska (2016)
14/21
employmenttoarbitrationor(2)containanexplicitincorporationofthestatutory
anti-discriminationrequirementsinadditiontoabroadandgeneralarbitrationclause.39
Thecollectivebargainingagreementatissueheredoesnotmeeteither
prongoftheHammond test. First,itlacksaprovisionwherebyemployeesspecifically
agreetosubmitall...causesofactionarisingoutoftheiremploymenttoarbitration.
Grievances that may result[] in the loss of pay (suspension and discharge) are
addressed,asdescribedabove,throughatwo-stagehearingprocessfollowedbyan
appeal toarbitrationbefore theSystemBoardofAdjustment.According tothecollective
bargainingagreement,[t]heBoardshallhavejurisdictionoverdisputesbetweenany
employeeoremployeescoveredbythisAgreementandtheCompanygrowingoutof
grievancesoroutofinterpretationorapplicationofanyofthetermsofthisAgreement.
Althoughdisputes . . .growingoutofgrievances isa verybroadcategory, the
agreementfurtherexplainsthepurposeoftheBoardasadjustinganddecidingdisputes
or grievances which mayariseunder the termsof this Agreement,and which are
properly submitted to itafterexhaustingtheprocedureforsettlingdisputes.(Emphasis
added.) Propersubmissionisfurtherdefined: Describingtheresultsofthesecondary
hearing, the agreement provides that [i]n the event the issue(s) is not settled
satisfactorily,the General Chair may appeal to arbitrationwithinthirty(30)calendar
days; and defining the duties of the SystemBoard ofAdjustment, the agreement
providesthat[t]heBoardshallconsideranydisputeproperlysubmittedtoitby the
General Chair of the Union or his/her designee, or by the Representative of the
Company. (Emphasisadded.) Theagreementthusemphasizesrepeatedlythat,onthe
employeeside,onlyappealstoarbitrationtakenbytheunionoritsrepresentativesarecontemplated. Thereisnothingintheagreementsplainlanguagethatwouldleadan
Hammond,107P.3dat877(quotingRogers v. N.Y. Univ.,220F.3d73,76
(2dCir.2000)).
- 14- 7082
39
7/25/2019 Bernard v. Alaska Airlines, Inc., Alaska (2016)
15/21
employeetobelievethattheBoardwasauthorizedtoconsideranyappealsotherthan
thosethatwereproperlysubmittedtoitbytheunion,thecompany,ortheirauthorized
representatives.40
Thecontractsapparentforeclosureofagrievantsrighttoarbitrateifthe
uniondeclinestodosoonthegrievantsbehalfisinconsistentwiththefirstprongofthe
Hammond test,whichrequirestheemployeesspecificagreementtosubmitallclaims
toarbitration;itisalsoinconsistentwiththesecondprongoftheHammond test,which
requiresabroadandgeneralarbitrationclause.41 Weemphasizethatwearenot
decidingherewhetherBernard,regardlessofthelanguageofhiscollectivebargaining
agreement,hadanindividualrighttopursuearbitrationthathefailedtoexercise,as
AlaskaAirlinesurgesandasthesuperiorcourtheld. Wehavenotdecidedwhetherthe
RLAprovidesapersonalrighttodemandarbitrationwhentheunionfailstodoso,and
40 Neitherpartyarguesthattheemployeehimselfcouldbethedesigneeof
theunionsgeneralchairforpurposesoftakinganappealwithoutunionbacking,andtherecordinthiscasedoesnotshowthatsuchadesignationwasconsidered. Alaska
AirlinesarguesthatBernardsrighttosubmitanyclaimtotheBoardisevidentinthefollowinglanguagefromthecollectivebargainingagreement:Employees...maybe
represented atBoard hearingsbysuchperson orpersons as theymaychooseand
designate.AlaskaAirlinessuggeststhatthis language,coupledwiththeunionsexplicitnoticetoBernardthathecouldacquirealawyeratanytime,clarifiedBernards
independentrightand isconsistentwiththefirstprongof theHammond test. But
Bernardsrightto representation does notclearlystatethathemayproperlysubmitany
claimtotheSystemBoardofAdjustmentonhisown.Notably,theagreementfurtherprovidesthatBernardschosenrepresentativemustbeselectedinconformancewiththe
constitutionoftheUnion,andtheunionaccordinglyinformedBernardthatitmustgive its blessing to have an attorney represent [him] before the System Board of
Adjustment.
41 Hammond,107P.3dat877(quotingRogers,220F.3dat76).
- 15- 7082
7/25/2019 Bernard v. Alaska Airlines, Inc., Alaska (2016)
16/21
federalcourtsaredivided.42 ButthatissueisirrelevanttoourresolutionofBernards
case,whichturnsonthelanguageofhiscollectivebargainingagreementandwhetherit
showsaclearandunmistakablewaiverofhisrighttopursuestatelawclaimsinstate
court.
Thecollectivebargainingagreementatissueherealsolackstheexplicit
incorporationofthestatutoryanti-discriminationrequirementsnecessarytothesecond
prong of theHammond test.43 Asnoted above, the agreement included ageneral
provisionincorporatingAlaskaAirlinesotherrulesandpolicies,statingthatemployees
shallbegovernedbytheCompanysGeneralPolicyandOperatingManuals,andthe
SystemRegulationandCustomerServiceManualsandbyallotherapplicablerules,
regulationsandordersissuedbyproperlydesignatedauthoritiesoftheCompany,which
arenotinconflictwiththetermsofthisAgreement.Amongtheseincorporatedpolicies
isthecompanysCodeofConductandEthics,whichincludesthisanti-discrimination
provision:
TheCompanyisanequalopportunityemployer. Thismeans
theCompanyiscommittedtoprovidingequalconsiderationin all employment decisions (including, for example,
recruiting, hiring, training, promotions, pay practices,benefits, disciplinary actions and terminations) withoutregardtoage,race,color,gender,nationalorigin,religion,
maritalstatus,sexualorientation,disability,veteranstatusor
anyotherclassificationprotectedbyfederal,state,orlocallaws.
42 Compare Martin v. Am. Airlines, Inc.,390F.3d601,608-09 (8thCir.2004)
(holdingthat45U.S.C.153(j)doesnotprovideindependentrighttoappealtotheSystemAdjustmentBoard,butcollectivebargainingagreementmay),with Santiago v.United Air Lines, Inc.,969F.Supp.2d955,966(N.D.Ill.2013)(holdingthatwhile
section153(j)doesnotprovideindependentrighttoappealtotheSystemAdjustment
Board,45U.S.C.184(2011)does).
43 Hammond,107P.3dat877(quotingRogers,220F.3dat76).
- 16- 7082
7/25/2019 Bernard v. Alaska Airlines, Inc., Alaska (2016)
17/21
The provision goes on to say that the company will not tolerate any form of
discriminationorharassmentthatencouragesorcouldcreateanoffensive,hostileor
intimidatingworkenvironment,andthat[a]ctsofdiscriminationandharassmentnot
onlyviolateourCompanyvaluesandpolicies,butmayalsoviolatefederal,state,and
local lawsandarestrictlyprohibited. OtherSystemRegulationssetoutgeneral
standardsofexpectedconduct. NoneoftheincorporatedprovisionstowhichAlaska
AirlinesdirectsusexpresslycitesAlaskalaw.
Moreimportantly,thecollectivebargainingagreementexpresslyretains
Alaska Airlinesrighttomodifythereferencedpoliciesandcodesofconduct unilaterally
duringthetermoftheAgreement. Evenassumingthattheagreementcontains,byits
referencetogeneralpoliciesandcodesofconduct,anexplicitincorporationofthe
statutoryanti-discriminationrequirementsofAlaskalaw, 44wecouldnotfindaclear
andunmistakablewaiveroftheemployeesrighttopursuestatelawclaimsinstate
courtwhentheemployerretainsaunilateralrighttomodifyoreliminatethelanguage
onwhichthewaiverisbased.
Wehold that the collective bargaining agreementdid not clearlyand
unmistakablywaiveBernardsrighttopursuehisstatelawclaimsinstatecourt. He
thereforehadthatrightanddidnotneedtoexhausthiscontractualremediesbefore
bringingsuit.ItwaserrortodismissBernardsclaimsaseitherpreemptedbyfederallaw
orbarredbytheexhaustiondoctrine.45
44 Id.
45 AlaskaAirlinesalsoasksustoaffirmthedismissalofBernardsclaimsonalternategrounds.First, it contendsthatthe20-monthtimebetweenBernardsallegation
ofsexualharassmentin2009andhisterminationin2011istoolongasamatteroflawtosupportafindingofretaliatorydischarge. ButBernardsfirstamendedcomplaint
allegedacourseofconductcommencingin2009andcontinuing throughhis termination.
(continued...)
- 17- 7082
7/25/2019 Bernard v. Alaska Airlines, Inc., Alaska (2016)
18/21
B. Bernards Hybrid Claim For Breach Of The Duty Of FairRepresentationWasTime-Barred.
InhisproposedsecondamendedcomplaintBernardincludedahybridclaim
forbreachofthedutyoffairrepresentation,basedontheunionsallegedfailuretonotify
himofitsdecisionnottopursuearbitrationuntilafterthefilingdeadline. Thesuperior
courtdismissedthehybridclaimastime-barred. ItfoundthatBernardhadnoticethat
thegrievanceprocesshadterminatedtohisdisadvantagewhenhereceivedtheunions
noticethatitwouldnotappealhiscaseonNovember14,2011,andthathiscomplaint
instatecourt,filedAugust16,2013,waswelloutsidethesix-monthwindowforhybrid
claims. Weagreewiththesuperiorcourtsdecisionofthisclaim.
Employee claims for violation of the duty of fair representation are
exceptionstotheexclusivejurisdictionoftheRLA.46Likeothercourts,werecognize
45(...continued)
Andthelackoffactualfindingsinacasedecidedonmotionstodismissprecludesus
fromdecidingthecaseonfact-basedgrounds. AlaskaAirlinesalsoarguesconclusorilythatBernardspolicy-basedclaimisbarredbythetwo-yeartortstatuteoflimitations,
AS09.10.070. BernardwasdischargedonJune24,2011,thedecisionofthesecondary
hearing is dated August 17, and Bernard filed his complaint two years later onAugust16,2013.Histwo-monthpursuitofthegrievanceprocessequitablytolledthe
statuteoflimitations. See Richardson v. Municipality of Anchorage,360P.3d79,89
(Alaska2015)(describingelementsofequitabletollingwhereaplaintiffpursuesoneavailablecourseoflegalredress,failstoobtainrelief,andisallowedtopursuetheother
course);Intl Assn of Machinists & Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO v. Aloha Airlines,
Inc.,790F.2d727,738(9thCir.1986)(holdingthatitwouldbeinconsistentwiththeunderlyingpoliciesoffederallaborlawtodenyequitabletollingtopartieswhohave
engagedingoodfaithinacontractualgrievanceprocess).
46 See Sisco v. Consol. Rail Corp.,732F.2d 1188,1190 (3dCir.1984)(Threeexceptionstotheexhaustionrequirementinactionsagainstemployerscalling
forthe resolutionofminor disputeshavebeenrecognized: (1)whentheemployerrepudiatestheprivategrievancemachinery;(2)whenresorttoadministrativeremedies
wouldbefutile;(3)whentheemployerisjoinedina[dutyoffairrepresentation]claim
(continued...)
- 18- 7082
7/25/2019 Bernard v. Alaska Airlines, Inc., Alaska (2016)
19/21
thatinrareinstancesthestatutorily-createdarbitrationschemeissimplyinsufficientto
accomplishtheveryendsitwasdesignedtofurther.47Onesuchinstanceis[w]here
theemployeesfailuretopersonallyresorttotheBoard[forarbitrationofanemployment
dispute]arisessolely outofrelianceontheunionsexpertiseandisafunctionofhisor
herownlackofthesame.48 Inthatevent,failuretoaffordtheemployeeajudicial
remedyistantamounttoadenialofthe right tobeapartytoalegallyenforceable
collectivebargainingagreement. 49 Inwrongfuldischargecases,inordertoavoidthe
RLAsarbitrationrequirement,theemployeemustdemonstrateboththathisdischarge
violatedthecollectivebargainingagreementandthathisunionbreacheditsdutyoffair
representation.50Thismakestheclaimahybrid,evenwhentheemployeechoosesto
46(...continued)
againsttheunion.).Bernardraisesonlythefutilityexceptioninhisappeal. See Czosek
v. OMara,397U.S.25,27-28(1970)([I]tisbeyondcavilthatasuitagainsttheunionforbreachofitsdutyoffairrepresentationisnotwithinthejurisdictionoftheNational
RailroadAdjustmentBoardorsubjecttotheordinaryrulethatadministrativeremediesshouldbeexhaustedbeforeresorttothecourts.).
47 Kaschak v. Consol. Rail Corp.,707F.2d902,907(6thCir.1983);see also
Childs v. Pa. Fedn Bhd. of Maint. Way Emps.,831F.2d429,437-41(3dCir.1987)
(recognizingthethreeSisco exceptionsbutholdingthatthefourthexceptioninKaschakexcusedtheemployeefromexhaustingadministrativeremedies).
48
Kaschak,707F.2dat910(emphasisinoriginal).49 Id.
50 Schaub v. K & L Distribs., Inc.,115P.3d555,564(Alaska2005);see also
Vaca v. Sipes,386U.S.171,186(1967);United Parcel Serv., Inc., v. Mitchell,451U.S.
56,62(1981).
-
19- 7082
7/25/2019 Bernard v. Alaska Airlines, Inc., Alaska (2016)
20/21
sueonlytheemployeroronlytheunion. 51 Bernardsoughttobringsuchaclaimwhen
heaskedforleavetofilehissecondamendedcomplaint.
Butfederallawsubjectsallsuchclaimstothesix-monthlimitationsperiod
foundin160(b)oftheNationalLaborRelationsAct(NLRA),52governingcomplaints
ofunfairlaborpractices. InDelCostello v. International Brotherhood of Teamstersthe
UnitedStatesSupremeCourtappliedthesix-monthlimitationsperiodtohybridclaims
broughtundertheNLRA.53 WefollowedDelCostello whenweappliedthesix-month
limitationsperiodtohybridclaimsbroughtundertheLaborManagementRelationsAct
(LMRA).54 Mostfederalcircuitcourtshaveappliedthesix-monthlimitationtohybrid
suitsbroughtundertheRLA, 55andweseenoreasonnottodothesame.Bernardsclaim
51 DelCostello v. Intl Bhd. of Teamsters,462U.S.151,165(1983)(Theemployeemay,ifhechooses,sueonedefendantandnottheother;butthecasehemust
prove is thesamewhetherhe suesone,theother, orboth. Thesuitis thusnota
straightforwardbreachofcontractsuit...,butahybrid[]fairrepresentationclaim,amounting to a direct challenge to the private settlement ofdisputes under [the
collective-bargainingagreement]. (thirdalterationinoriginal)(quotingMitchell,451
U.S.at 66(Stewart,J.,concurring))).
52 29U.S.C.160(b)(2012).
53 462U.S.at172.
54 See Schaub,115P.3dat564(BecauseSchaubsclaimishybrid[undertheLMRA],weconcludethatitissubjecttothesix-monthstatuteoflimitations....).
55 See Brock v. Republic Airlines, Inc.,776F.2d523,525-26(5thCir.1985)
(BecausethedutyoffairrepresentationundertheRailwayLaborActisidenticaltothe
dutyoffairrepresentationundertheNationalLaborRelationsAct,andbecausethefederalpoliciesandinterestsarticulatedinDelCostello arepresentinhybridactions
undertheRailwayLaborAct,...thesix-monthstatuteoflimitationsin10(b)ofthe
NationalLaborRelationsActalsocontrolsdutyoffairrepresentationclaimsandhybridactionsbroughtundertheRailwayLaborAct.);
Dozier v. Trans World Airlines, Inc.,
(continued...)
-
20- 7082
7/25/2019 Bernard v. Alaska Airlines, Inc., Alaska (2016)
21/21
wasbrought21monthsaftertheuniondeclinedtoappealhisgrievancetoarbitration,
anditisbarredbythesix-monthlimitationsperiod.
V. CONCLUSION
WeAFFIRMthesuperiorcourtsorderdismissingBernardshybridclaim
forbreachof thedutyoffair representation. WeREVERSE the orderdismissing
Bernardsotherclaimsaseitherpreemptedorsubjecttothearbitrationprovisionsofthe
collectivebargainingagreement,andweREMANDforfurtherproceedingsconsistent
withthisopinion.
55(...continued)760F.2d849,851(7thCir.1985)(ThesamepoliciesthatledtheCourttoadopta
federallimitationsstatuteforhybridclaimsbroughtundertheLMRAapplywithequal
forcetoactionsbroughtundertheRLA,whichsimilarlygovernslabor-managementdisputesalthoughonlyincommon-carrierindustries.Thus,thereasoningandanalysis
ofDelCostello controlintheinstantcase.);Barnett v. United Air Lines, Inc.,738F.2d
358,363-64(10thCir.1984)(applyingthelimitationsperiodrecognizedinDelCostellotoa hybridaction);Welyczko v. U.S. Air, Inc., 733F.2d 239, 241 (2dCir.1984)
(applyingthelimitationsperiodrecognizedinDelCostello toahybridaction);Sisco v.Consol. Rail Corp.,732F.2d1188,1191-94(3rdCir.1984)(applyingtheNLRAstatute
of limitations period to an action against a union for breach of the duty of fair
representation);Hunt v. Mo. Pac. R.R.,729F.2d578,581(8thCir.1984)(applyingtheNLRAstatuteoflimitationsperiodtoanactionagainstaunionforbreachofthedutyof
fairrepresentation).
- 21- 7082
Recommended