Knutsson v. KTLA, LLC
176 Cal. Rptr. 3d 376
Cal. Ct. App.2014Background
- Kurt Knutsson and his company Woojivas entered a 2008 personal services agreement with KTLA for Knutsson to provide technology reporting as "Kurt the CyberGuy." The personal services agreement incorporated terms of KTLA’s collective bargaining (staff newspersons) agreement with the union (AFTRA Los Angeles Local).
- The union-employer collective bargaining agreement contains a three-step grievance process; only the union or KTLA may demand arbitration under step 3 after steps 1–2 are exhausted. Steps 1–2 require employee/supervisor discussion and union presentation to management before a step 3 appeal and potential arbitration.
- KTLA terminated Knutsson’s services in February 2011 and replaced his segments with another reporter; Knutsson sued KTLA for breach of contract, misappropriation of likeness, unfair business practices, and age discrimination.
- KTLA moved to compel arbitration based on incorporation of the collective bargaining agreement into the personal services agreement; plaintiffs refused. The trial court denied KTLA’s motion on the ground required grievance steps were not exhausted.
- On appeal the court considered: (1) whether KTLA could compel plaintiffs to use the collective-bargaining grievance/arbitration procedures; (2) whether the arbitration duty extended to an individual employee who is not the union; and (3) whether the court or arbitrator decides arbitrability and related procedural prerequisites.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether KTLA can force plaintiffs to pursue the CBA grievance steps (steps 1–2) before litigating | Knutsson: grievance steps were not applicable/unsatisfied and the union-only arbitration mechanism does not bind him | KTLA: plaintiffs incorporated the CBA and thus must follow its grievance/arbitration prerequisites, including steps 1–2 | Court: KTLA forfeited any right to now compel compliance with steps 1–2 (waiver/forfeiture under federal common law) |
| Whether KTLA can compel arbitration under step 3 as to plaintiffs (individuals) | Knutsson: the CBA permits only the union (or KTLA) to require arbitration; individual members lack power to compel arbitration | KTLA: incorporation of CBA binds plaintiffs to its arbitration regime; disputes relating to personal service agreements fall within the CBA’s arbitration scope | Court: the CBA allows only the union or KTLA to demand arbitration; KTLA cannot compel plaintiffs (nonunion parties) to arbitrate |
| Whether the court or arbitrator decides arbitrability and compliance with procedural prerequisites | Knutsson: court should decide arbitrability because no mutual agreement to arbitrate exists between KTLA and plaintiffs | KTLA: any gateway issues about prerequisites should be for the arbitrator (relying on John Wiley/Howsam) | Court: the threshold question of whether disputes are subject to arbitration is for the court; John Wiley does not require arbitration where no duty to arbitrate exists |
| Whether procedural-prerequisite questions (e.g., failure to exhaust) are necessarily for an arbitrator | Knutsson: procedural prerequisites are irrelevant because there is no contractual duty to arbitrate him | KTLA: procedural issues are intertwined with merits and may be for the arbitrator under John Wiley | Court: where no arbitration duty exists between the parties, procedural-arbitrability issues are irrelevant; if duty existed, some procedural issues could be for arbitrator, but not here |
Key Cases Cited
- John Wiley & Sons, Inc. v. Livingston, 376 U.S. 543 (Sup. Ct. 1964) (court decides whether a collective-bargaining arbitration duty exists; procedural questions may be intertwined with merits)
- AT & T Technologies, Inc. v. Communications Workers, 475 U.S. 643 (Sup. Ct. 1986) (arbitration is based on consent; courts decide arbitrability unless parties clearly delegate it)
- United Paperworkers Int’l Union v. Misco, Inc., 484 U.S. 29 (Sup. Ct. 1987) (courts must enforce grievance/arbitration procedures under §301 but parties must first exhaust contract remedies)
- Hines v. Anchor Motor Freight, Inc., 424 U.S. 554 (Sup. Ct. 1976) (§301 enforcement of collective-bargaining contract terms, including grievance procedures)
- Granite Rock Co. v. Int’l Bhd. of Teamsters, 561 U.S. 287 (Sup. Ct. 2010) (arbitration is a matter of consent; courts resolve arbitrability absent clear delegation)
- Howsam v. Dean Witter Reynolds, 537 U.S. 79 (Sup. Ct. 2002) (procedural gateway questions are presumptively for arbitrators when parties would expect that result)
- Livadas v. Bradshaw, 512 U.S. 107 (Sup. Ct. 1994) (state courts apply federal substantive law in §301 cases; federal law governs enforcement of CBAs)