Wawock v. Super. Ct. CA2/5

Filed 4/8/15 Wawock v. Super. Ct. CA2/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

RICHARD WAWOCK, No. B261315

Petitioner, (Super. Ct. No. BC492586)

v. (Elihu M. Berle, Judge)

THE SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY,

Respondent;

CSI ELECTRICAL CONTRACTORS, INC.,

Real Party in Interest.

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING: Petition for Writ of Mandate: Writ Granted. Hayes Pawlenko, Matthew B. Hayes, Kye D. Pawlenko for Petitioner. Snell & Wilmer, Steve T. Graham, Todd E. Lundell, Ann Dwyer for Real Party- In-Interest.

Plaintiff Richard Wawock petitions for a writ of mandate. He seeks an order directing the respondent court to deny the petition to confirm arbitration brought by defendant CSI Electrical Contractors, Inc. (“CSI”). We grant the petition.

STATEMENT OF FACTS AND PROCEDURE Wawock, an electrician and a member of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, filed a class action complaint against defendant CSI Electrical Contractors (“CSI”), alleging that CSI failed to pay wages to its electricians for time spent attending mandated training courses on topics such as safety, first aid, and harassment prevention. He stated causes of action for violations of the Labor Code and controlling Wage Orders, and sought an injunction and attorneys fees under the Unfair Competition Law (Business and Professions Code section 17200 et seq.) as well as penalties under the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) (Labor Code, § 2698 et seq.). CSI petitioned to compel arbitration pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement (“CBA”). After hearing, the trial court determined that the CBA committed the threshold question of arbitrability to the Labor Management Committee. Wawock petitioned for writ review and this court issued an alternative writ. On September 17, 2013, a majority of this court denied the petition, holding that the parties had manifested a clear intent to commit the threshold question of arbitrability to the Labor Management Committee. (Wawock v. Superior Court (Sept. 17, 2013, B248269) [nonpub. opin.].) This court did not decide the question of arbitrability. In the meantime, Wawock submitted his claims to the Labor Management Committee, which found them arbitrable. The Labor Management Committee issued a final arbitration award finding in favor of CSI on all claims. Wawock then filed an action in the federal district court to vacate the arbitration award on the ground that the Labor Management Committee manifestly disregarded federal law in finding his statutory claims arbitrable. Wawock’s federal complaint invoked federal question jurisdiction. A