create an implicit obligation to investigate employee misconduct that results in disciplinary action. Plaintiff presented no evidence that defamatory statements were made outside the context of the investigation and grievance procedure required by the collective bargaining agreement. 3. Plaintiffs claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress is based on the same conduct as the first two claims and therefore is preempted. See, e.g., Harris v. Alumax Mill Prods., Inc., 897 F.2d 400, 403 (9th Cir.1990) (<HOLDING>); Chmiel v. Beverly Wilshire Hotel Co., 873
holding that where the conduct forming the basis of the plaintiffs breach of duty of good faith and fair dealing claim is the same conduct forming the basis for the breach of contract claim the claims merge and there is no separate cause of action for breach of duty of good faith and fair dealing holding that a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress was preempted where it arose out of the same conduct as a preempted contract claim holding that erisa  514a preempts claims for breach of contract breach of duty of good faith and fair dealing negligence and intentional infliction of emotional distress holding that a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress was preempted where it was based on the same conduct as a preempted claim for breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing holding plaintiffs causes of action for breach of contract breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing intentional infliction of emotional distress and violations of the arizona insurance code were preempted by erisa