Wanland v. Los Gatos Lodge, Inc.

• Decision Date: 05 June 1991
• Docket Number: No. H006093,H006093
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: , 141 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2588 Carolyn WANLAND, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. LOS GATOS LODGE, INC., Defendant and Appellant.

Page 890

281 Cal.Rptr. 890

230 Cal.App.3d 1507, 141 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2588

Carolyn WANLAND, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. LOS GATOS LODGE, INC., Defendant and Appellant.

No. H006093.

Court of Appeal, Sixth District, California.

June 5, 1991.

As Modified on Denial of Rehearing

June 28, 1991.

Review Denied Sept. 19, 1991.

Diepenbrock, Wulff, Plant & Hannegan and Dennis R. Murphy, Brodovsky & Brodovsky and Donald M. Wanland, Jr., Sacramento, for plaintiff and appellant.

Frank A. Jelinch, Cupertino, Thoits, Love, Hershberger & McLean and William J. McLean, Palo Alto, for defendant and appellant.

AGLIANO, Presiding Justice.

Los Gatos Lodge, Inc. (the Lodge) appeals from a judgment entered on a jury verdict of $150,000 in favor of Carolyn Wanland in her action for constructive wrongful termination. The Lodge contends plaintiff's action is preempted by federal labor law and asserts error in several of the trial court's evidentiary rulings and in the giving of a punitive damage instruction to the jury. Plaintiff cross-appeals, urging error in a ruling in limine excluding evidence she contends was pertinent to her claim that two other employees of the Lodge intentionally interfered with her employment contract. We find no reversible error and therefore affirm.

Factual Background

Carolyn Wanland began working for the Lodge in October 1980 as a front desk clerk. In time she became the assistant to the Lodge's catering manager and then was named director of sales and marketing. When the catering manager retired, in April 1985, plaintiff was promoted to that position.

At the outset of her employment at the Lodge, plaintiff joined the Hotel-Motel Restaurant Employees and Bartenders Union, Local 19 (the Union). As a front desk clerk, plaintiff was covered by the terms of a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) between the Lodge and the Union. The CBA provided, inter alia, for termination only on just cause. The Lodge also had a policy of termination only on just cause for its non-union employees.

When plaintiff became catering manager, Dr. Norman McFate, the owner of the Lodge, asked her to resign her union membership. Plaintiff refused to do so. She remained a member of the Union until after leaving her employment at the Lodge.

The catering department at the Lodge had fallen into a state of disarray during the tenure of plaintiff's predecessor. McFate expected that the necessary reorganization would take about six months. After plaintiff had worked for only ten weeks as catering manager, however, William Houd, the manager of the Lodge, removed her from the position. He informed her that she would be reassigned with no loss of salary or benefits, and asked her where else in the Lodge she wished to work. Plaintiff refused the reassignment and resigned.

Plaintiff sued the Lodge, asserting numerous causes of action. She named McFate and Houd as individual defendants in her cause of action for intentional interference with contractual relations. All but two of the original causes of action (including the claim against McFate and Houd for interference with contract) were dismissed on motions. The Lodge unsuccessfully sought dismissal of the entire action on the basis of the preemptive effect of section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA) (29 U.S.C., § 185, subd. (a).) The remaining claims--for breach of employment contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing--proceeded to trial before a jury.

Plaintiff's theory of the case was that she was constructively terminated without just cause in violation of rights implied in her employment contract. She contended that the true reason for her termination was not, as asserted by the Lodge, poor job performance but rather the undue influence exerted on Houd by Janet O'Keefe, a fellow employee. Plaintiff sought to prove that O'Keefe and Houd had a close personal relationship, that O'Keefe disliked plaintiff, and that O'Keefe influenced Houd to terminate plaintiff. In a pretrial ruling in limine, the trial court limited inquiry into the Houd-O'Keefe relationship, permitting plaintiff to adduce evidence of the existence of such a relationship only through a date 30 days after Wanland's termination. Both plaintiff and the Lodge complain the ruling was erroneous and prejudicial.

The jury returned a verdict in plaintiff's favor, finding the Lodge liable for $150,000 in general damages. The jury was instructed as to the conditions under which it could award punitive damages, but awarded none.

Discussion

1. Plaintiff's Action Was Not Preempted By Federal Labor Law.

Both at trial and at an earlier motion for summary adjudication of issues, the Lodge unsuccessfully sought dismissal of plaintiff's action on the ground that because it essentially sought to enforce her rights under the CBA, it fell within the scope of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) (29 U.S.C., §§ 151-169) and was therefore preempted by section 301 of the LMRA. The court determined through summary adjudication of issues that plaintiff remained a member of the Union until several months after leaving the Lodge. The Lodge now renews its contention that plaintiff was covered by the just-cause termination provisions of the CBA and that her action is therefore preempted. We cannot agree.

Although no provision of the CBA specifically excludes the position of catering manager from coverage, and although the agreement's "Wage And Classification Schedule" lists the category "Managers, Head Waiters/Waitresses, Cashiers, Checkers--For Jobs in All Establishments" (emphasis added), other provisions of the CBA as well as extrinsic evidence in the record support the conclusion that the position of catering manager was not covered by the agreement. The CBA gave the Lodge a right to insist that supervisory personnel not be Union members. On promoting plaintiff to catering manager, Houd demanded that she quit the Union. In a letter to her union representative, plaintiff explained that she had refused to resign her union membership because the Union maintained a pension plan for its members, while the Lodge did not have a comparable plan for its non-union employees. Plaintiff's successor as catering manager testified that she, along with other managerial employees, did not belong to the Union. Plaintiff stated in deposition her belief that the position of catering manager was not covered by the CBA. After her employment was terminated, she sought the Union's representation in her dispute with the Lodge. The Union declined to assist her, citing the fact that she had been employed as a manager.

The extrinsic facts being essentially undisputed, we must make an independent determination of the issue whether the CBA covers the position of catering manager. (Parsons v. Bristol Development Co. (1965) 62 Cal.2d 861, 866, 44 Cal.Rptr. 767, 402 P.2d 839; Delucchi v. County of Santa Cruz (1986) 179 Cal.App.3d 814, 820-821, 225 Cal.Rptr. 43.)

Our independent reading of the CBA and the other evidence in the record persuades us that the trial court correctly determined that the catering manager position was not covered by the CBA. In our view, the CBA provision giving the Lodge the right to require that its supervisory personnel not be Union members is inconsistent with an intent that such supervisors be covered under the agreement. Indeed, the Lodge's attempt to force plaintiff to quit the Union, although ineffectual, can only be seen as an assertion of its right under the CBA to assure that plaintiff, as a managerial employee, not be placed in a potential conflict of interest in the event of a dispute between the Lodge and Local 19. The presence of the term "Managers" in a wage scale applicable to restaurant employees does not require a different conclusion, particularly as plaintiff was salaried and not paid according to the wage scale for shift-working managers. Moreover, the Union's refusal to represent plaintiff due to her managerial status provides some support for an inference that the CBA did not cover plaintiff. Obviously, however, had the Union erred in its interpretation of the CBA, plaintiff's remedy would be not a state law wrongful termination claim but a suit against the Lodge under the NLRA, joined perhaps with a claim against the Union for breach of its duty of fair representation. (29 U.S.C., § 185.)

The Lodge argues that merely because the parties disagree over whether the CBA covers the position of catering manager, plaintiff's action is necessarily preempted in its entirety by federal labor law. Section 301 of the LMRA provides: "Suits for violation of contracts between an employer and a labor organization representing employees in an industry affecting commerce as defined in this chapter, or between any such labor organizations, may be brought in any district court of the United States having jurisdiction of the parties, without respect to the amount in controversy or without regard to the citizenship of the parties." (29 U.S.C., § 185, subd. (a).)

The United States Supreme Court has construed the preemptive effect of section 301 broadly. In Avco Corp. v. Aero Lodge 735 (1968) 390 U.S. 557, 88 S.Ct. 1235, 20 L.Ed.2d 126 the Court decided that state law does not exist as an independent source of private rights to enforce collective bargaining contracts. When resolution of a state-law claim is substantially dependent on analysis of a collective bargaining agreement, the Court has held, the claim is preempted. (Allis-Chalmers Corp. v. Lueck (1985) 471 U.S. 202, 220, 105 S.Ct. 1904, 1915, 85 L.Ed.2d 206.) However, even if dispute resolution pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement, on the one hand, and state law, on the other, would require addressing precisely the same set of facts, as long as the state-law claim can be resolved without interpreting the agreement itself, the claim is "independent" of the CBA for section 301 preemption purposes. (Lingle v. Norge Division,...