## Facts

- Robert R. Hammond worked for about twenty years as an employee of the Alaska Department of Transportation & Public Facilities (DOTPF).
- In 1994, while assigned to the Homer Gravel Roads Project, Hammond believed the contractor’s rock violated contract specifications and complained to the contractor, within DOTPF, and to the Federal Highway Administration.
- Hammond requested and received a transfer off the project, then continued making allegations of DOTPF mismanagement, including accusations of corruption and fraud.
- State and federal investigations found no merit or reasonable basis for Hammond’s allegations.
- DOTPF terminated Hammond, stating his unfounded attacks challenged the integrity and competence of the department and staff.
- Under a collective-bargaining agreement (CBA), Hammond grieved his discharge and proceeded to arbitration; the arbitrator found “just cause” and concluded Hammond’s allegations were not made in good faith.
- While arbitration was pending, Hammond filed a superior court action under the Alaska Whistleblower Act against DOTPF and several employees, seeking reinstatement and related relief.
- After the arbitration award, the superior court granted summary judgment for the State, holding the arbitration decision precluded Hammond’s whistleblower claims; Hammond appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether a CBA arbitration award upholding discharge for “just cause” has claim- or issue-preclusive effect barring an employee’s independent statutory whistleblower claims in court absent a “clear and unmistakable” agreement to arbitrate those statutory claims.

## Decision

- The Alaska Supreme Court reversed the grant of summary judgment and remanded.
- The court held Hammond was not precluded from pursuing Alaska Whistleblower Act claims because he did not clearly and unmistakably agree to submit those statutory claims to arbitration.
- The court distinguished between arbitration of contract-based rights under a CBA and adjudication of independent statutory rights in court, declining to treat the arbitration award as a final determination of the statutory cause of action.

## Legal Principles

- Contract-based rights under a CBA (e.g., “just cause” discipline standards) are distinct from rights created by independent statutes (e.g., whistleblower protections).
- An employee’s waiver of a judicial forum for statutory claims through arbitration must be “clear and unmistakable”; general CBA grievance-arbitration provisions are insufficient without an explicit agreement covering the statutory claim.
- Arbitration awards may have preclusive effect in appropriate circumstances, but preclusion will not bar statutory claims that were not clearly submitted for arbitral resolution under a valid, explicit agreement to arbitrate those statutory rights.

## Conclusion

The court held that a CBA arbitration award sustaining a discharge does not, by itself, bar a separate statutory whistleblower action; absent a clear and unmistakable agreement to arbitrate the whistleblower claim, the employee may proceed in court notwithstanding the prior arbitration.


Hammond v. State, Dep’t of Transp. & Pub. Facilities, 107 P.3d 871 (Alaska 2005)