With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". he failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact to support his claim Land O’Lakes falsely and fraudulently informed him his night loader position would be eliminated. [¶ 14] We affirm the summary judgment. [¶ 15] SANDSTROM, NEUMANN and MARING, JJ., concur. [¶ 16] The Honorable CAROL RONNING KAPSNER was not a member of the Court when this case was heard and did not participate in this decision. 1 . Because of our resolution of this issue, we acknowledge, but do not fully consider, Land O’Lakes’ alternative arguments that Smith’s claims are preempted by federal labor law and are barred by his failure to comply with the grievance procedure of the collective bargaining agreement. See Lingle v. Norge Div. of Magic Chef, Inc., 486 U.S. 399, 413, 108 S.Ct. 1877, 100 L.Ed.2d 410 (1988) (<HOLDING>); Allis-Chalmers Corp. v. Lueck, 471 U.S. 202,

A: holding state law claim preempted by  301 of labor management relations act only if application of state law requires interpretation of collective bargaining agreement
B: holding state law claim substantially dependent upon interpretation of collective bargaining agreement must be dismissed for failure to use grievance procedure or as preempted by  301 of labor management relations act
C: holding section 301 preempted plaintiffs claim for tortious interference with contract because that claim would require interpretation of a collective bargaining agreement
D: holding that an employees state law claim against employer for breach of settlement agreement arrived at by virtue of grievance process established by the collective bargaining agreement was preempted by labor management relations act
A.