62 Cal.App.5th 1080
Cal. Ct. App.2021Background
- Plaintiff Tramon Wilson‑Davis, a dishwasher employed at LAX, sued SSP America entities on behalf of himself and a putative class for multiple California wage‑and‑hour and related statutory claims.
- SSP and Unite Here Local 11 had a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) covering the employees; Article 10 defines "grievance" and prescribes a multi‑step grievance process (Step One meeting; Step Two written grievance and meeting; optional non‑binding mediation).
- Article 11 provides an arbitration procedure but uses permissive language (the union or employer "may" submit unresolved grievances to arbitration) and limits the arbitrator to issues the parties "set forth in writing specifically" for arbitration.
- Plaintiff sued in state court (after federal court remanded), alleging only statutory violations (wage, overtime, meal/rest breaks, reimbursement, wage statements, waiting time, UCL, and PAGA), not breaches of the CBA.
- SSP moved to compel arbitration under the CBA and the FAA; the trial court denied the motion, concluding the CBA did not clearly and unmistakably (1) delegate arbitrability to an arbitrator, nor (2) waive employees’ judicial forum rights for statutory claims. This appeal followed; the Court of Appeal affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) Who decides arbitrability (court or arbitrator)? | Court should decide because CBA does not clearly and unmistakably delegate arbitrability. | CBA's broad arbitration structure (common in labor CBAs) implicitly delegates arbitrability to arbitrator. | Court: arbitrability is for the court; CBA contains no clear and unmistakable delegation (First Options / Granite Rock framework). |
| 2) Does the CBA contain a clear and unmistakable waiver of the right to litigate statutory wage‑and‑hour claims in court? | No — Wright requires an explicit, clear and unmistakable waiver to foreclose statutory forum; CBA is permissive and does not incorporate statutes. | Yes — overlap between CBA provisions and statutory subjects shows parties intended arbitration of those claims. | Court: No waiver; Articles 10–11 are permissive, do not clearly incorporate or make statutory rights contractual, so no clear and unmistakable waiver. |
| 3) Are plaintiff's statutory claims within the CBA's grievance/arbitration scope? | Plaintiff: claims allege statutory violations, not interpretation/application/enforcement of the CBA, so outside CBA scope. | SSP: plaintiff's claims implicate provisions of the CBA and thus fall within "grievance" definition. | Court: Plaintiff's claims assert statutory rights only and do not require interpretation/application/enforcement of the CBA; therefore not subject to arbitration under the CBA. |
Key Cases Cited
- First Options of Chicago v. Kaplan, 514 U.S. 938 (1995) (courts decide arbitrability absent clear and unmistakable delegation).
- Granite Rock Co. v. Int'l Bhd. of Teamsters, 561 U.S. 287 (2010) (same framework applies to labor and commercial CBAs).
- Wright v. Universal Maritime Service Corp., 525 U.S. 70 (1998) (collective bargaining agreement must contain a clear and unmistakable waiver to arbitrate statutory claims).
- Rent‑A‑Center, West, Inc. v. Jackson, 561 U.S. 63 (2010) (delegation enforced where arbitration clause expressly grants arbitrator authority over enforceability).
- Henry Schein, Inc. v. Archer & White Sales, Inc., 139 S. Ct. 524 (2019) (arbitrability gateway questions go to arbitrator only when parties clearly and unmistakably delegate).
- SEIU Local 121RN v. Los Robles Reg'l Med. Ctr., 976 F.3d 849 (9th Cir. 2020) (Desert Palace abrogated; court decides arbitrability absent clear delegation).