PITTSBURGH – Citing a federal statute, U.S. Steel has likewise removed to federal court a class action complaint which alleged it violated the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act (PMWA), by not paying employees for the time they spent showering and walking to their worksites, among other pre- and post-work activities.
Christopher Floyd first filed suit in the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas on Jan. 16 versus United States Steel Corporation. Both parties are of Pittsburgh.
The complaint accused the corporation of failing to pay wages for time associated with various required work activities at the beginning and end of the workday within the premises of defendant’s Edgar Thomson Plant.
Those activities included walking to the locker room to change and shower and waiting for and donning personal protective equipment.
UPDATE
Counsel for U.S. Steel removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania on March 6.
“This action is being removed to this Court on the basis of preemption under 29 U.S.C. Section 185(a), as it involves a controversy requiring the interpretation of a collective bargaining agreement governing the actions of the parties in interest. In particular, during his tenure with defendant USS, plaintiff was a member of the United Steel, Paper, and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union, a labor union with whom defendant USS has a CBA known as the ‘Basic Labor Agreement’, ‘BLA’ or ‘Agreement,” the removal notice stated.
“The BLA, among other things, addresses union members’ hours of work, work time, job duties, and rates of pay. Moreover, the BLA provides a pre-determined amount of compensation to certain employees for time spent performing preparatory or closing activities which occur outside of their scheduled shift or away from their worksite. At all times relevant to this action, plaintiff was employed at defendant USS’s Edgar Thomson Plant, which is specifically covered by the BLA. Plaintiff’s complaint alleges that ‘as a matter of policy,’ defendant USS fails to compensate him and alleged class members for all time performing tasks prior to and after their scheduled shifts. The complaint also ‘challenges the legality under the PMWA of defendant’s company-wide timekeeping, compensation, and payroll practices.”
U.S. Steel’s added its “compensation ‘policy’ applicable to plaintiff and the class of employees he purports to represent is set by the BLA” and that “adjudication of his PMWA claim would necessitate interpretation and application of relevant provisions of the BLA governing plaintiff’s job duties and wages.”
“Under the Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA), this Court has original jurisdiction over lawsuits concerning ‘violation[s] of contract between an employer and a labor organization.’ Additionally, ‘when resolution of a state-law claim is substantively dependent upon analysis of the terms of an agreement made between parties in a labor contract, that claim must be treated as an LMRA claim,” the removal notice added.
“Because the resolution of plaintiff’s PMWA claim would necessitate the analysis and interpretation of his job duties and wages as provided in the governing BLA, this Court has original jurisdiction over his claims pursuant to the LMRA’s complete preemption of such claims. Defendant USS files this notice without waiving any defenses to the claims asserted by plaintiff, without conceding that plaintiff has stated claims upon which relief can be granted, and without conceding that plaintiff is entitled to any damages against defendant in any amount. By filing this notice of removal, defendant does not make any admission of fact, law, or liability, including expressly without conceding that plaintiff is similarly situated to the alleged purported class. Defendant expressly reserves the right to raise any and all available procedural and substantive defenses.”
For counts of violating the PMWA, the plaintiff is seeking unpaid overtime wages, pre-judgment interest, litigation costs, expenses, attorney’s fees and such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper.
The plaintiff is represented by R. Andrew Santillo of Winebrake & Santillo in Dresher, plus Timothy Conboy of Conboy Law, in Pittsburgh.
The defendant is represented by Marla N. Presley and Laura C. Bunting of Jackson Lewis, also in Pittsburgh.
Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas case GD-24-000542
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com