Plaintiff's claims for unpaid overtime wages under 29 U.S.C. § 207(a)(1) (Fair Labor Standards Act) were properly dismissed upon a record establishing that he was paid a salary of more than $250 a week for duties that were primarily managerial and supervisory in nature (see 29 C.F.R. § 541.1[f]; Donovan v. Burger King Corp., 675 F.2d 516, 517-518 [2nd Cir]), that his salary was not subject to a significant likelihood of reductions for variations in the quality or quantity of work performed or partial day absences (see 29 C.F.R. § 541.118[a]; Auer v. Robbins, 519 U.S. 452, 461), and that he therefore was a "bona fide executive" within the meaning of the exemption in 29 U.S.C. § 213(a). Plaintiff's claims for attorneys' fees under Labor Law § 198, based on defendants' purported violation of Labor Law § 191(a)(1)(i) in failing to pay him overtime at the rate provided in his collective bargaining agreement, were properly dismissed. Such claims necessarily require interpretation of the collective bargaining agreement, since defendants are disputing the applicability of the wage schedule invoked by plaintiff, and are therefore preempted by 29 U.S.C. § 185 (Labor-Management Relations Act) (see Livadas v. Bradshaw, 512 U.S. 107, 123-124). In view of the foregoing, it is not necessary to decide whether the individual defendant can be held liable for the overtime compensation obligations alleged herein. We have considered and rejected plaintiff's other arguments.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.