County of Riverside v. Public Employment Relations Board
200 Cal. Rptr. 3d 573
Cal. Ct. App.2016Background
- County of Riverside adopted a background-check policy affecting IT employees represented by SEIU Local 721; negotiations over effects reached impasse.
- The Union requested statutory advisory factfinding under the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act (MMBA); the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) granted the request over the County's objection.
- The County sued for declaratory and injunctive relief and other claims, arguing (1) MMBA factfinding applies only to comprehensive MOUs (not discrete bargainable matters) and (2) the factfinding process unconstitutionally delegates home-rule powers to a private body under Cal. Const. art. XI, § 11(a).
- At the trial level the court: rejected the constitutional challenge, granted the County’s narrower-scope challenge (holding factfinding applies only to successor/comprehensive MOUs), enjoined PERB accordingly, denied PERB’s anti-SLAPP motion, and awarded the County some attorney fees.
- On appeal PERB challenged the anti-SLAPP denial and fee award; the parties also sought review of the scope and constitutionality rulings. The Court of Appeal consolidated consideration with a related San Diego Housing Commission decision.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (County) | Defendant's Argument (PERB/Union) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether MMBA factfinding impermissibly delegates municipal home-rule powers in violation of Cal. Const. art. XI, § 11(a) | Factfinding divests counties/cities of final decisionmaking by delegating municipal functions to private factfinders | Factfinding is advisory only; agencies retain ultimate authority, so no unlawful delegation | Held: Factfinding is advisory and does not unconstitutionally divest home-rule powers; constitutional challenge rejected |
| Whether factfinding applies only to impasses over comprehensive/successor MOUs or to any bargainable matter | Applies only to successor/comprehensive MOUs (narrow scope) | Applies to impasses over any bargainable matter | Held: Applies to impasses over any bargainable matter (court reversed trial ruling and followed San Diego Housing Commission decision) |
| Whether PERB’s processing/approval of factfinding request is protected activity under anti-SLAPP (§ 425.16) | County: PERB’s actions are not protected or gravamen is not petition/speech | PERB: Processing an official statutory procedure is protected petitioning/speech | Held: PERB’s conduct falls within anti-SLAPP protected activity; trial court erred in denying the motion |
| Whether trial court properly awarded attorney fees to County and denied sanctions to PERB | County obtained fees for frivolous anti-SLAPP motion and under other statutes; sought to avoid sanctions | PERB sought fees as prevailing party under anti-SLAPP and sanctions under scheduling-order statute | Held: Fee award to County under anti-SLAPP and related statutes reversed; remanded to calculate fees owed to PERB; trial court did not abuse discretion in denying scheduling-order sanctions |
Key Cases Cited
- County of Los Angeles v. Los Angeles County Employee Relations Com., 56 Cal.4th 905 (discusses PERB and MMBA administrative role)
- County of Riverside v. Superior Court, 30 Cal.4th 278 (distinguishes binding arbitration that divests local final decisionmaking)
- County of Sonoma v. Superior Court, 173 Cal.App.4th 322 (addresses unlawful delegation where arbitration becomes binding absent unanimous rejection)
- Oasis West Realty, LLC v. Goldman, 51 Cal.4th 811 (anti-SLAPP two-step analysis)
- Vergos v. McNeal, 146 Cal.App.4th 1387 (statutory hearing procedures qualify as official proceedings under anti-SLAPP)
- San Ramon Valley Fire Protection Dist. v. Contra Costa County Employees' Retirement Assn., 125 Cal.App.4th 343 (anti-SLAPP standards and review)
- Kurz v. Syrus Systems, LLC, 221 Cal.App.4th 748 (administrative decision in official proceeding falls within anti-SLAPP protection)
- Young v. Tri-City Healthcare Dist., 210 Cal.App.4th 35 (distinguishes review of quasi-judicial administrative decisions under anti-SLAPP analysis)