Id. In Main v. Rio Tinto Alcan Inc., No. 4:12CV-00110, 2016 WL 698163, at *8 (W.D. Ky. Feb. 19, 2016), the plaintiff alleged that he was discharged in violation of KRS § 338.011 for reporting safety concerns to his employer. The Court held that the plaintiff could not "seek relief for wrongful termination because the statutes which create the public policy on which he relies specify the civil remedy for a violation."
A plain reading of plaintiff's allegations makes clear that the only contract at issue (and from which plaintiff quotes liberally) is the CBA. See, e.g., Main v. Rio Tinto Alcan Inc., No. 4:12CV-00110, 2016 WL 698163, at *7 (W.D. Ky. Feb. 19, 2016) ("It is clear that this breach of contract claim is a claim for breach of the collective bargaining agreement . . . and, therefore, is completely preempted by § 301[.]") Under the first step of the Sixth Circuit's analysis, there can be no question that resolving plaintiff's contract claims would require the Court to interpret the provisions of the CBA to determine the contractual rights owed to plaintiff and whether CSS's conduct constituted a breach of those terms.