42 Cal.App.5th 918
Cal. Ct. App.2019Background
- ALADS (union for nonmanagement deputy sheriffs and DA peace officers) sued Los Angeles County alleging the County breached two MOU compensation provisions (the ATB and EE clauses) that require matching pay increases given to other County safety bargaining units.
- In 2017 PPOA-represented management officers received POST-related pay increases; ALADS alleges those increases triggered the ATB and EE clauses for its members.
- The MOU grievance procedures allow employee-initiated grievances and arbitration, but arbitration of disputes under the Renegotiation article (which contains the ATB/EE clauses) is nonbinding and the procedures do not provide for classwide representative arbitration.
- ALADS attempted representative grievances; ERCOM scheduled arbitration but the County objected to ALADS pursuing classwide relief; ALADS then filed this representative lawsuit seeking contract, declaratory, writ, and MMBA claims. The County demurred for failure to exhaust administrative remedies; the trial court sustained the demurrer without leave to amend.
- The Court of Appeal reversed in part: held that exhaustion of MOU grievance procedures was not required for ALADS’s classwide contract claims because the administrative process cannot provide classwide, binding relief; but ALADS must present MMBA unfair-practice claims to ERCOM (exclusive initial jurisdiction). The court affirmed or struck several causes of action on alternative grounds and remanded with limited leave to amend.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ALADS is exempt from exhausting MOU grievance remedies because it sued in its own name | ALADS can sue in its own name to enforce the MOU and thus need not pursue individual administrative grievances | County: ALADS must exhaust administrative remedies available to its members before suing | Not exempt; filing in union name does not waive exhaustion requirement absent an exception |
| Whether the MOU grievance/arbitration process is an adequate administrative remedy for ALADS’s classwide claims | Process is inadequate because it lacks classwide relief and arbitration results here are nonbinding, so ALADS would need thousands of individual arbitrations | Process is adequate and bargained-for; ALADS should use it first | Grievance procedures are inadequate for class/representative relief; exhaustion excused for classwide contract claims |
| Whether ALADS’s MMBA (unfair practice) claims must first be presented to ERCOM | ALADS: ERCOM lacks authority to issue binding relief; exhaustion should be excused | County: ERCOM has exclusive initial jurisdiction over MMBA claims | ALADS must present MMBA claims to ERCOM; ERCOM’s limited remedial power does not excuse exhaustion |
| Whether declaratory claims about grievance scope and representative-grievance rights remain justiciable | ALADS seeks declarations that grievance scope excludes ATB/EE and that it may pursue class grievances | County: those declarations are ripe and relevant | Moot: because exhaustion is excused for the contract claims, the declaratory claims about administrative remedies are no longer an actual controversy and are struck |
| Whether ALADS’s petition for writ of mandate properly named necessary public officials | ALADS seeks writ compelling County to pay/effectuate MOU benefits | County: ALADS failed to join officials who perform ministerial acts of computing/paying | ALADS may amend third cause to add the County officials necessary for mandamus relief; joinder required |
| Whether breach of contract and breach of covenant claims state viable claims | ALADS alleges anticipatory repudiation and implied duty to notify of other unions’ increases | County: allegations insufficient as matter of law | Breach (repudiation) and implied covenant claims survive demurrer and may proceed |
Key Cases Cited
- City of Glendale v. Glendale City Employees’ Assn., 15 Cal.3d 328 (1975) (union may sue to enforce MOU; administrative grievance inadequate for broad contract interpretation)
- Coachella Valley Mosquito & Vector Control Dist. v. Public Employment Relations Bd., 35 Cal.4th 1072 (2005) (general rule that administrative remedies must be exhausted; exceptions for inadequacy/futility)
- City of San Jose v. Operating Engineers Local Union No. 3, 49 Cal.4th 597 (2010) (explains exhaustion exceptions where remedy is inadequate or pursuit would be futile)
- Ramos v. County of Madera, 4 Cal.3d 685 (1971) (class plaintiffs need not exhaust when no classwide administrative remedy exists)
- Rose v. City of Hayward, 126 Cal.App.3d 926 (1981) (administrative remedies inadequate where they cannot provide class relief)
- Tarkington v. California Unemployment Ins. Appeals Bd., 172 Cal.App.4th 1494 (2009) (if administrative remedies do not provide classwide relief, exhaustion is not required for class claims)
- Lopez v. Civil Service Com., 232 Cal.App.3d 307 (1991) (class actions are not per se exempt from exhaustion; adequacy of administrative remedies is the key inquiry)
- County of Los Angeles v. Los Angeles County Employee Relations Com., 56 Cal.4th 905 (2013) (ERCOM is the Los Angeles County counterpart to PERB with exclusive initial jurisdiction over MMBA unfair-practice charges)
- Service Employees Int’l Union, Local 1000 v. Dep’t of Personnel Admin., 142 Cal.App.4th 866 (2006) (enforcing arbitration/exhaustion where inadequate-exception not shown)