A? group? of? unionized? employees? filed? a? class action under California wage and hour law for unpaid travel time in California state court.?? The employer? removed? to? federal? court? based? on section 301 of the LMRA, claiming that federal law completely preempted the employees? claims because? there? were? collective? bargaining provisions related to the payment of the wages at issue.?? The district court denied the employees? motion to remand and granted the employer?s motion for summary judgment based on failure to exhaust contractual remedies and the LMRA six month statute of limitations.?? The Ninth Circuit reversed and ordered the case remanded to state court. ?The employees? state law claims were not preempted because they were based on a right independent of the collective bargaining agreement.?? The fact that unionized employees could under California law waive those rights in a collective bargaining agreement did not create preemption? when? no? waiver? had? taken? place. Only where there has been an actual waiver of such independent state law rights in a collective bargaining agreement does preemption arise. Burnside v. Kiewit Pacific Corp., No. 04-57134 (6/20/07; Berzon, Pregerson, Wm. Fletcher).