Vasserman v. Henry Mayo Newhall Memorial Hospital
8 Cal. App. 5th 236
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Plaintiff Tanya Vasserman, a registered nurse, sued Henry Mayo Newhall Memorial Hospital for Labor Code violations (meal/rest breaks, unpaid overtime, wage statements, PAGA, UCL) after brief employment in 2014.
- The Hospital asserted her employment was governed by a CNA collective bargaining agreement (CBA) containing a three-step grievance and binding arbitration procedure (Article 12) and provisions on compensation (Article 14) and meal/rest periods (Article 15).
- Article 12 defines grievances as disputes about interpretation or application of specific CBA Articles/Sections and limits arbitrator authority to matters included in the CBA; it does not reference statutes.
- Article 15 references the Labor Code and Wage Orders regarding penalties for missed meal/rest periods and states a nurse may file a grievance under Article 12 if penalties are not paid; Article 14 addresses overtime formulas but does not cite statutes or remedies.
- The Hospital moved to compel arbitration; the trial court denied the motion, finding no clear and unmistakable waiver of the right to a judicial forum for statutory claims. The Court of Appeal affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the CNA CBA contains a clear and unmistakable waiver of employees’ right to a judicial forum for statutory claims | Vasserman: CBA does not explicitly incorporate Labor Code statutes or expressly waive judicial forum; arbitration limited to contract grievances | Hospital: CBA (Articles 12, 14, 15) requires grievance/arbitration of wage, meal/rest claims and references to Labor Code/Wage Order show clear waiver | Held: No. The CBA lacks an explicit, clear-and-unmistakable waiver; Article 12 is limited to contract interpretation and does not incorporate statutes |
| Whether Articles 14 and 15 (compensation; meal/rest) plus Article 12 together sufficiently incorporate statutory rights into the CBA | Vasserman: General language and penalty-payment promises do not incorporate statutory rights or subject them to arbitration | Hospital: Article 15’s reference to Labor Code/Wage Order and Article 14’s overtime schemes show incorporation and arbitrability | Held: No. Article 14 omits statutory citations; Article 15 only references penalties and does not expressly incorporate Labor Code provisions or make compliance subject to arbitration |
Key Cases Cited
- Wright v. Universal Maritime Service Corp., 525 U.S. 70 (statutory claims require a clear and unmistakable waiver in a CBA to compel arbitration)
- Vasquez v. Superior Court, 80 Cal.App.4th 430 (CBA waiver of judicial forum must be explicit; courts consider generality of clause and explicit statutory incorporation)
- 14 Penn Plaza LLC v. Pyett, 556 U.S. 247 (individual vs union-negotiated waivers discussion in arbitration context)
- Torrez v. Consolidated Freightways Corp., 58 Cal.App.4th 1247 (union may not prospectively waive employees’ rights to a judicial forum for statutory claims)
- Mendez v. Mid-Wilshire Health Care Ctr., 220 Cal.App.4th 534 (broad compliance language insufficient for clear-and-unmistakable waiver)
- Flores v. Axxis Network & Telecommunications, Inc., 173 Cal.App.4th 802 (applies Wright/Vasquez standard to statutory claims in CBA context)
- Choate v. Celite Corp., 215 Cal.App.4th 1460 (discusses insufficiency of general CBA language to waive statutory rights)
- Cramer v. Consolidated Freightways, Inc., 255 F.3d 683 (court may examine CBA for waiver of state-law rights without triggering LMRA preemption)