In any FLSA suit including unionized employees, the defense attorney need to constantly try to find a preemption defense. That implies that the suit is not effectively prior to a Judge since it includes union agreement analysis, the matter should be arbitrated under the grievance-arbitration treatment. A company has actually simply made this claim and, if effective, the whole case disappears. The case is entitled Mack v. 6 Flags Excellent Experience LLC and was submitted in federal court in the District of New Jersey.
The company asserts that “the CBA has a complaint and arbitration treatment in location to solve complaints. The complaint and arbitration treatment follows a multi-step procedure, consisting of casual efforts to solve a conflict, and eventually culminating in compulsory arbitration.” The company’s position is that since the work schedules and hours of staff members are referenced in the agreement, the disagreement belongs in arbitration.
It is a working time case. The called complainant declares that all staff members needed to approach 20 minutes throughout the park, at which time they were forced to go through screening before/after their shifts. They desire payment for the time. This is the 2nd shot for the complainant in the event. He had actually taken legal action against in federal court. Then, the Business protected by asserting that the court did not have jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act and the Judge dismissed the case, without bias. Now, the complainants are back for a 2nd shot.
The Takeaway
This is the precise ideal method to go. If the Business can show that the matter needs analysis of agreement terms, then it needs to be triumphant. If, on the other hand, the matter is considered to include a clear infraction (e.g., paying less than State base pay) of a State law, the movement to dismiss on preemption premises will stop working. It is still worth the effort.
After all, it might be a magic bullet …