Wood v. Marathon Refining Logistics Service LLC

Background

Janice Wood, Anthony Alfaro, and Aaron Dietrich brought a proposed class action against Marathon Refining Logistics Service LLC. They alleged that the company’s standby-shift practices violated California Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order 1-2001, the California Labor Code, and California’s Unfair Competition Law. The proposed class consisted of operators and maintenance workers employed at the defendant’s refinery in Martinez, California.

According to the complaint, employees assigned to standby shifts had to remain available to receive a call. Employees who could not be reached allegedly could be treated as absent without leave and disciplined. If called, they allegedly had to report to the refinery within a designated or reasonable time. Employees who received no call during a standby shift allegedly were not paid. The plaintiffs alleged that these requirements restricted their ability to make other work, school, family, social, and travel commitments.

Motion to dismiss

The defendant moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which permits dismissal when a complaint does not state a legally sufficient claim. It argued that the plaintiffs’ claims were preempted by section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act and that the plaintiffs had not stated a claim for reporting-time pay.

Court’s analysis

The court held that the claims asserted rights arising from California law rather than rights created solely by the collective bargaining agreements. But it also held that the claims were substantially dependent on those agreements because resolving them would require interpreting multiple collective bargaining agreements, related guidelines, and the standby-shift system.

The complaint did not clearly explain whether the standby obligation was mandatory or voluntary, whether work crews created their own systems, or whether the company’s default procedure applied. The agreements and guidelines addressed matters including the ability to trade standby assignments, notify the company of unavailability, respond to calls, reach the refinery within a reasonable time, and remove oneself from the voluntary overtime list. The court concluded that deciding whether the plaintiffs were entitled to reporting-time pay would require more than consulting the agreements; it would require interpreting nuanced and potentially ambiguous provisions. The court stated that this type of dispute belonged before an arbitrator rather than the court.

The plaintiffs conceded that, if the Labor Management Relations Act preempted their claims, the claims had to be dismissed for failure to first use the grievance and arbitration procedures in the collective bargaining agreements. The court therefore concluded that section 301 preempted the claims and dismissed them.

Disposition

The court granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss with leave to amend. It stated that there was not enough information to determine whether the plaintiffs could amend their complaint in a way that avoided the need to interpret the collective bargaining agreements or guidelines. Any amended complaint had to be filed by January 6, 2020. The court also ordered that no new claims or parties could be added without the court’s permission or the defendant’s agreement. The order terminated Docket Number 16.