form the basis for a statutory standard of care). Even if it did, Plaintiffs claim relates to his termination, not to the health and safety objectives that the regulation targets. See Haw.Rev.Stat. § 396-2 (stating the purposes of the health and safety law). 2. Summary judgment was properly granted on Plaintiffs defamation claim. The statements made in judicial and administrative proceedings were related to Plaintiffs misconduct and termination and therefore fell within the absolute litigation privilege. See McCarthy v. Yempuku, 5 Haw.App. 45, 678 P.2d 11, 14 (1984) (describing privilege). Plaintiffs claim based on statements made during the company’s investigation and grievance procedures is preempted by the LMRA. See Shane v. Greyhound Lines, Inc., 868 F.2d 1057, 1063 (9th Cir.1989) (<HOLDING>); Scott v. Machinists Auto. Trades Dist. Lodge
holding that a defamation claim is a personal injury tort claim holding that a defamation claim based on statements in a written disciplinary notice was preempted holding that a claim based on statements made during a formal grievance procedure was preempted holding statelaw claim based on alleged failure to give proper notice of right to convert is preempted by erisa holding claim based on failure to disclose information to the epa preempted