bernard v. alaska airlines, inc., alaska (2016)

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

[email protected].

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:[email protected]:[email protected]


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


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


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


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


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


7/21

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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

bernard v. alaska airlines, inc., alaska (2016)

Documents