234 Cal. App. 4th 459
Cal. Ct. App.2015Background
- Los Angeles County and two unions (ALADS, LAPPOA) had five MOUs providing multi-step grievance procedures culminating in arbitration for disputes over MOU interpretation or application (including overtime claims).
- Unions filed class grievances seeking overtime for “donning and doffing” and off‑the‑clock supervisory work for ~10,000 employees; ERCOM granted a consolidated/class arbitration request over the County’s objection.
- The County sued for declaratory and injunctive relief and filed a petition for writ of mandate to invalidate ERCOM’s class/consolidation order; the trial court (Judge Lavin) granted the writ, rejecting implied consent to class arbitration.
- Unions filed a cross‑complaint alleging breach of MOU seeking the same overtime relief; County moved to compel individual arbitrations under Code Civ. Proc. § 1281.2 and dismiss or stay the cross‑complaint.
- Trial court (Judge Fahey) denied the County’s motion and stayed/delayed arbitration under § 1281.2(c) for judicial economy, reasoning adjudication in superior court might resolve disputes that would otherwise require many individual arbitrations.
- Court of Appeal reversed, holding all claims were arbitrable individually and the trial court erred in relying on § 1281.2(c) and judicial‑economy grounds to delay arbitration.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (County) | Defendant's Argument (Unions) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court properly denied motion to compel individual arbitrations under § 1281.2(c) | MOUs require individual arbitration of overtime claims; court must compel arbitration and cannot delay based on judicial economy | Trial court may delay/deny arbitration under § 1281.2(c) because there are pending court proceedings that might resolve common issues and because motion was untimely | Reversed: § 1281.2(c) inapplicable because there were no nonarbitrable "other issues"; court must order arbitrable claims to arbitration rather than delay for judicial economy |
| Whether the County waived its right to compel individual arbitration by earlier conduct | County argued it consistently objected to class arbitration and timely sought individual arbitration | Unions argued County delayed and only moved belatedly after ERCOM consolidation | Trial court did not rule on waiver; appellate opinion confined to § 1281.2(c) issue and did not decide waiver |
| Whether common legal issues justify pre‑arbitration litigation in court | County: arbitration provisions cover interpretation/application of MOUs; individual arbitrations are appropriate even if common legal questions exist | Unions: common legal issues should be resolved in court first; consolidated/class arbitration required for efficiency | Court: common legal issues are arbitrable here; existence of common issues does not create nonarbitrable issues that justify delaying arbitration |
| Whether union representational role or MOU language bars individual arbitrations | County: union representation does not negate each employee’s obligation to arbitrate; MOUs allow union to present grievances but individual participation is required | Unions: MOUs contemplate union‑initiated group claims; individual arbitrations impractical | Court: union representation does not eliminate individual arbitration requirement; MOUs permit union representation but claims remain individual and arbitrable |
Key Cases Cited
- Avery v. Integrated Healthcare Holdings, Inc., 218 Cal.App.4th 50 (standard of review for arbitration orders)
- Barner v. Leeds, 24 Cal.4th 676 (statutory interpretation reviewed de novo)
- RN Solution, Inc. v. Catholic Healthcare West, 165 Cal.App.4th 1511 (procedure when arbitrable and nonarbitrable claims coexist)
- Iskanian v. CLS Transp. Los Angeles, LLC, 59 Cal.4th 348 (distinguishing nonarbitrable public‑policy class issues)
- Acquire II, Ltd. v. Colton Real Estate Group, 213 Cal.App.4th 959 (judicial economy is not a basis to deny arbitration)
- Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 1756 v. Superior Court, 46 Cal.4th 993 (union‑representation does not eliminate individual arbitration obligations)
- Airline Pilots Assn. Internat. v. United Airlines, Inc., 223 Cal.App.4th 706 (arbitrability of union‑represented individual claims)