184 | Massachusetts Wage & Hour Peculiarities, 2025 ed. © 2025 Seyfarth Shaw LLP terms of a CBA are preempted.1149 A state law claim is preempted if its resolution hinges upon an interpretation of the CBA.1150 However, a state law claim is not preempted if state law creates non-negotiable rights that do not depend on an interpretation of the CBA.1151 For example, in Rose v RTN Federal Credit Union, the plaintiff sued for unpaid wages and nonpayment of overtime under Massachusetts law for time spent traveling to work locations other than her regular work site.1152 However, the plaintiff was covered by a collective bargaining agreement which included an express provision relating to temporary transfers. The First Circuit concluded that adjudicating the state law claims required construing and applying the terms of the collective bargaining agreement. The court affirmed the district court’s granting of judgment on the pleadings in favor of the employer. Preemption does not apply when the employer is a public entity. This is because public entities are not covered by federal labor law and instead are subject to Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 150E. B. Is the Dispute Subject to Mandatory Arbitration Under the CBA? A related issue is whether the dispute is subject to mandatory arbitration under the CBA. It is typical for CBAs to include a grievance and arbitration provision, requiring any dispute regarding the interpretation or application of a term of the CBA to be resolved solely through the grievance and arbitration process. Under federal labor (which applies to private employers), employees generally are not required to grieve and arbitrate statutory claims which are wholly independent from the terms of the CBA.1153 However, if the claim requires an interpretation or analysis of the CBA language, then the claim may fall within the scope of the grievance and arbitration provision, depending on its language.1154 State law is less clear and likely depends on the claims being asserted. In Tortolano v. Lemuel Shattuck Hospital, the Massachusetts Appeals Court held that a plaintiff was required to exhaust the contractual grievance and arbitration process.1155 In that case, the plaintiff brought a breach of contract claim for unpaid overtime rather than a statutory claim.1156 The Appeals Court affirmed the dismissal of the claim, explaining that because the plaintiff had not exhausted the contractual 1149 Teamsters Local v. Lucas Flour, 369 U.S. 96, 104-05 (1962); 1150 Flibotte v. Pa. Truck Lines, Inc., 131 F.3d 21, 26 (1st Cir. 1997) (citing Lingle v. Norge Div. of Magic Chef, Inc., 486 U.S. 399, 405-06 (1988)). 1151 Lingle v. Norge Div. of Magic Chef, Inc., 486 U.S. 399, 407 n.7 (1988). 1152 1 F.4th 56 (1st Cir. 2021). 1153 Id. at 63-64. Note, however, the Supreme Court held in 14 Penn Plaza v. Pyett, 556 U.S. 247 (2009), that a union could waive bargaining unit employees’ rights to proceed in court by bargaining in good faith with the employer that statutory claims must be arbitrated. 1154 Rose, 1 F.4th at 63-64. 1155 93 Mass. App. Ct. 773 (2018). 1156 Id. at 775 n.3. See also Johnston v. School Committee of Watertown, 404 Mass. 23 (1989) (plaintiff could not pursue a claim for contractual overtime under a collective bargaining agreement, where he failed to comply with the grievance process).
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTkwMTQ4