within the scope of the agreement, and negligence was specifically described within that scope. Id. 17 . Some of the provisions of the CBAs that Defendant cites to involve procedures that the employer will follow if an employee complains of a ‘‘potential” workplace safety concern. Importantly, Plaintiffs’ negligence claim is not based on Defendant’s failure to follow a procedure established by a CBA. See Arceneaux v. Amstar Coip., No. 03-3588, 2004 WL 574718, at *4 (E.D.La. Mar. 22, 2004) ("Plaintiffs do not allege that defendants violated the applicable health and safety provisions of the CBA. To determine whether defendants violated their duty to plaintiffs, a court need look only as far as [Louisiana state law].”); see also McKnight v. Dresser, Inc., 676 F.3d 426, 434 (5th Cir.2012) (<HOLDING>). 18 . For instance, coworkers testifying that
holding misrepresentation claim to be preempted holding that question of whether a state law tort claim was preempted by the lmra focused on whether evaluation of the tort claim is inextricably intertwined with consideration of the terms of the labor contract holding employees negligence claim not preempted by lmra holding that  302 of the lmra is not preempted by nlrbs exclusive jurisdiction to hear  7 or  8 nlra cases holding plaintiffs state law claims of inter alia tortious interference with contract are preempted by section 301 of lmra