{"id":334,"date":"2026-01-05T12:00:00","date_gmt":"2026-01-05T12:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/california.shuster.info\/?p=334"},"modified":"2026-01-05T12:00:00","modified_gmt":"2026-01-05T12:00:00","slug":"oswald-mv-transportation-lmra-preemption-cba-bus-driver","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/california.shuster.info\/?p=334","title":{"rendered":"Oswald v. MV Transportation \u2014 N.D. Cal. throws out bus driver\u2019s wage-and-hour class action under LMRA preemption"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n
Case<\/dt>\n
Richard Ryan Oswald v. MV Transportation, Inc., et al.<\/dd>\n
Court<\/dt>\n
U.S. District Court \u2014 Northern District of California<\/dd>\n
Date Decided<\/dt>\n
2026-01-05<\/dd>\n
Docket No.<\/dt>\n
3:25-cv-00696<\/dd>\n
Status<\/dt>\n
Unreported \/ Non-Citable<\/dd>\n
Topics<\/dt>\n
Labor Management Relations Act \u00a7 301 preemption; collective bargaining agreement; California Labor Code \u00a7\u00a7 510-514; meal and rest period exemptions; commercial driver exemption; Wage Order 9; grievance and arbitration; Burnside two-step test<\/dd>\n<\/dl>\n<\/div>\n

Background<\/h2>\n

Richard Ryan Oswald drove buses for MV Transportation, Inc. on Western Contra Costa Transit Authority (WestCAT) routes from August 2023 to November 2024. His employment was governed by a collective bargaining agreement between MV and Teamsters Local 315 that took effect July 1, 2023. In December 2024, he filed a putative class action in Contra Costa County Superior Court alleging California-law wage-and-hour violations: unpaid minimum wages and overtime, missed meal and rest periods, inaccurate wage statements, unlawful deductions, late wages during employment, waiting-time penalties at termination, payroll-record violations, expense reimbursement violations, and a UCL claim.<\/p>\n

MV removed the case to the Northern District under federal-question jurisdiction, arguing that Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act completely preempts Oswald\u2019s state-law claims because they require interpretation of the CBA. Oswald filed a parallel PAGA representative action that was related-cased to Judge Mart\u00ednez-Olgu\u00edn. MV moved for judgment on the pleadings and asked, in the alternative, to compel arbitration under the CBA\u2019s grievance procedure.<\/p>\n

The Court’s Holding<\/h2>\n

The court granted MV\u2019s motion for judgment on the pleadings on every claim in causes one through nine and the eleventh (UCL) cause of action. It first took judicial notice of the CBA, finding it publicly available and applicable to Oswald\u2019s employment, and of his commercial driver\u2019s license, which is a matter of public record under California law.<\/p>\n

Applying the Ninth Circuit\u2019s two-step Burnside<\/em>\/Curtis<\/em> framework for Section 301 preemption, the court held that each substantive Labor Code claim either arose solely under the CBA or was substantially dependent on its interpretation, because the California Labor Code itself cuts off statutory rights for unionized commercial drivers when specific CBA conditions are met.<\/p>\n

For overtime, Labor Code \u00a7 514 exempts employees covered by a CBA that expressly provides wages, hours, working conditions, premium overtime rates, and a base wage of at least 130% of California\u2019s minimum wage. The MV\/Teamsters CBA met every requirement \u2014 straight-time wages between $24.49 and $33.00 per hour exceed the 130% threshold for 2023, 2024, and 2025 \u2014 so the right to overtime existed solely under the CBA and was preempted under Curtis<\/em>.<\/p>\n

For meal periods, both Labor Code \u00a7 512(e)(2) and the related \u00a7 226.7(e) carve commercial drivers out where a CBA provides for binding arbitration of meal-period disputes, premium overtime, and a 130%-of-minimum base wage. Article 28 of the CBA expressly opts in to \u00a7 512(e). Independently, Oswald qualified as a \u201ccommercial driver\u201d under \u00a7 512(g)(1) because he held a Class B commercial driver\u2019s license and operated a passenger-transport vehicle.<\/p>\n

For rest periods, Wage Order 9 \u00a7 12(C) exempts public transit bus drivers covered by a CBA that provides rest periods, binding arbitration, premium overtime, and a 130% base wage. The MV CBA satisfied each element.<\/p>\n

The minimum-wage claim, the wage-statement claim, the unlawful-deductions claim, the timely-payment claims, the payroll-records claim, the waiting-time penalties claim, and the UCL claim were all dismissed as derivative of the preempted overtime, meal, and rest period claims, following Chavez v. Smurfit Kappa<\/em> and Berryman v. Merit Property Management<\/em>. Once the foundational claims were preempted, the derivative claims fell with them.<\/p>\n

Finally, even if Oswald\u2019s preempted claims had been brought as Section 301 claims, he would have been required to exhaust the CBA\u2019s mandatory grievance and arbitration procedure under Soremekun<\/em>, Truex<\/em>, and 14 Penn Plaza LLC v. Pyett<\/em>. He did not allege any such exhaustion. The court directed MV to submit a proposed judgment.<\/p>\n

Key Takeaways<\/h2>\n