State high court gives lawsuit against Giants a fresh at-bat

A lawsuit against the San Francisco Giants brought by guards at the team's park will return to the plate in state court with the California Supreme Court's ruling that the alleged labor violations do not require interpretation of the plaintiffs' union agreement and are thus not subject to its arbitration clause.

The guards sued under the state labor code, arguing they are intermittent workers who are discharged after every Giants home stand, concert, or other event. Intermittent employees are due immediate pay after each discharge. The team's business entity, San Francisco Baseball Associates Inc., says they are employees due semimonthly pay.

After the lawsuit's filing, the Giants moved to compel arbitration, citing the guards' collective bargaining agreement arbitration clause and the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947, which requires disputes between unionized workers pertaining to their agreements be resolved according to that deal.

A trial court disagreed, citing state law expressing that unless interpretation of the agreement is required, state courts hold jurisdiction. However, the guards struck out on appeal when a 1st District Court of Appeal panel overturned the trial court ruling on the grounds that a relation to the agreement triggers preemption of state law.

The state Supreme Court rejected the appellate ruling and agreed with the trial court, allowing the guards' lawsuit to take another swing in state court.

"Nothing in the agreement addresses the timing of wage payments, which shows that plaintiffs' complaint is aimed at an issue separate from the benefits bargained for in the agreement," wrote Justice Ming W. Chin in the unanimous decision released Thursday.

"Our finding that the action is not preempted is consistent with the policies underlying section 301(a) [of the Labor Management Relations Act]," he continued. "It is up to state courts, not an arbitrator, to interpret state labor law standards applicable to all workers."

The court's ruling was limited to the jurisdictional issues, without reaching the merits. Melendez v. San Francisco Baseball Associates LLC, 2019 DJDAR 3432 (Cal. April 25, 2019).

The guards were represented by Sahag Majarian II of Tarzana, who could not be reached for comment.

Karin Dougan Vogel of Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP represented the team, and referred comment to her client.

"Today's ruling does not speak to the merits of the underlying case, but simply addresses whether the case should be arbitrated or litigated in court. The plaintiff in this case has regularly worked on weekends as a security guard for many years and is paid every two weeks in accordance with California law," said Giants Executive Vice President and General Counsel Jack Bair.

"[The plaintiff] claims that he should be paid each Sunday after his shift instead of every two weeks. We are confident that whether the case is arbitrated or litigated, plaintiff's argument will be rejected as having no merit," he added.

In a preternatural confluence, the on-field rival Los Angeles Dodgers backed the Giants as amici curiae. The San Diego Padres, Oakland Athletics and San Jose Sharks hockey team did as well.

Ryan Wu of Capstone Law APC, who was not involved in the case, said the ruling affirms state law's check on federal preemption of labor code claims.

"The California Supreme Court confirmed that the Section 301 test for preemption is a narrow one, with state law being preempted only if the court is required to interpret the collective bargaining agreement, rather than merely reference it, to resolve the state law claim," he said.

"This is another victory for workers, who will have the benefit of state law protections beyond what's covered by their collective bargaining agreement," he added.