Summary
stating that Kentucky law does not afford a cause of action when an employee's rights and obligations as a union employee are determined by a collective bargaining agreement
Summary of this case from Main v. Rio Tinto Alcan Inc.Opinion
Civil Action No. 07-16-HRW.
August 14, 2008
ORDER
This matter is before the Court upon the Defendant A.K. Steel Corporation's Motion for Summary Judgment [Docket No. 29].
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), the undersigned referred the motion to Magistrate Judge Edward B. Atkins for a report and recommendation [Docket No. 36].
The Magistrate has since issued his report in which he recommends that Defendant's dispositve motion be sustained [Docket No. 38]. Specifically, the Magistrate found that Plaintiff's wrongful discharge claim was based upon the applicable collective bargaining agreement and, thus, preempted by the Labor Management Relations Act ("LMRA"). The Magistrate also determined that Plaintiff's claim is properly classified as a "hybrid" claim under Section 301 of the LMRA, but, concluded that Plaintiff failed to properly state such a claim. Finally, the Magistrate found that Plaintiff could not maintain his asserted state law public policy claim because he was not an at-will employee.
Plaintiff filed timely and particularized objections to the Report and Recommendation [Docket No. 40].
The Court having reviewed the objections, as well as the record, finds nothing therein which would contradict or call into question the findings of the Magistrate. The Objections are, essentially, a reiteration of the arguments set forth in Plaintiff's response to Defendant's motion. Those arguments were considered and rejected by the Magistrate Judge and Plaintiff offers no additional argument or case law which would persuade this Court to differ with the Magistrate Judge's findings in this regard.
Plaintiff's claim is bourne of the collective bargaining agreement, and is thus preempted by the LMRA. However, as determined by the Magistrate, Plaintiff's claim fails under Section 301. The Court is not persuaded otherwise. Thus, the Court shall adopt the report and recommendation as and for its own opinion.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
1) that the Magistrate Judge's report and recommendation [Docket No. 38] is hereby, APPROVED and ADOPTED as for the opinion of the Court and.
2) that in conformity therewith, Defendant A.K. Steel Corporation's Motion for Summary Judgment [Docket No. 29] is hereby SUSTAINED.
A judgment in favor of the Defendant will be entered contemporaneously herewith.