Rodriguez v. Gonsalves & Santucci, Inc.

Background

Elmer N. Rodriguez brought a proposed class action against his former employer, Gonsalves & Santucci, Inc. The complaint alleged that employees performed unpaid work before clocking in and after clocking out, including waiting for temperature checks, putting on and removing uniforms and safety equipment, and collecting and storing tools. The alleged unpaid time resulted in claims for failure to pay California minimum wages, inaccurate wage statements, failure to pay all wages due at termination, and unfair competition under California law.

Rodriguez worked for the defendant on construction projects from February 2020 through December 2020 and was covered by collective bargaining agreements. Those agreements addressed subjects including wages, hours, meal and rest periods, wage statements, and procedures for resolving disputes about the agreements.

Motion and Jurisdiction

The defendant moved to dismiss the second amended complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), arguing that the claims were preempted by Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act and that Rodriguez had to use the collective bargaining agreement’s grievance procedures. The court had previously dismissed two complaints based on its earlier conclusion that some claims depended on or arose directly from the agreement.

The court reconsidered that earlier analysis because the second amended complaint presented a narrower case. The remaining claims concerned alleged failure to pay employees at all for work performed before and after their shifts. The court explained that Section 301 preemption applies when a state-law claim is based directly on rights created by a collective bargaining agreement or substantially depends on interpreting the agreement. Merely consulting an agreement during state-law litigation does not by itself require preemption.

Ruling on Preemption

The court held that the minimum-wage claim was not preempted. Under California law, the relevant questions were whether the employees performed work, whether they were paid less than the minimum wage, and the amount of unpaid wages. California law defines hours worked by reference to the time an employee is subject to the employer’s control. The court concluded that these questions could be answered without interpreting the collective bargaining agreement.

The court also held that the claims for inaccurate wage statements, unpaid termination wages, and unfair competition were derivative of the minimum-wage claim and therefore were not preempted. It rejected the defendant’s argument that the termination-wage claim was preempted because the agreement contained different pay arrangements, explaining that this claim was based on failure to pay minimum wages rather than the overtime and break claims involved in the earlier analysis.

Grievance Procedures and Disposition

The court rejected the defendant’s argument that Rodriguez had to exhaust the agreement’s grievance procedures. The agreement’s waiver provisions applied to disputes concerning the meaning and enforcement of the agreement, and the court found nothing showing that employees had waived access to a judicial forum for these state-law claims.

Because the Labor Management Relations Act did not preempt the remaining claims, the federal court had no subject-matter jurisdiction. Judge Laurel Beeler denied the motion to dismiss and remanded the case to the Contra Costa County Superior Court. The order resolved ECF No. 59.