Metro. Water Dist. of S. Cal. v. Winograd
234 Cal. Rptr. 3d 622
| Cal. Ct. App. 5th | 2018Background
- AFSCME (union) grieved the District’s use of "comparative analysis" language in job postings, alleging it adds an unnegotiated screening step that can exclude internal candidates who meet minimum qualifications.
- The parties’ MOU and a 2005 side letter govern recruitment: the side letter states internal candidates meeting minimum requirements "shall be allowed to compete in the examination process," and the MOU lists "review of records" among permissible "employment testing."
- For the specific posting at issue (Job Posting 3533719), 124 applicants applied; 59 were screened out for not meeting minimums; only one internal applicant existed and that person did not meet minimums—so comparative analysis was not applied to any qualified internal candidate in that posting.
- Hearing Officer Winograd sustained the grievance and ordered the District to cease using posting language or procedures that allow comparative analysis to bar candidates from written tests or interviews before those stages.
- The District filed a petition for writ of administrative mandamus under CCP § 1094.5; the trial court granted the writ, finding the dispute not ripe, the hearing officer exceeded the scope of the grievance, and the remedy impermissibly modified the MOU. The appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (AFSCME) | Defendant's Argument (District) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ripeness: Was there a justiciable controversy over comparative analysis? | The District’s stated intent to continue using comparative analysis made the dispute ripe; a broader declaratory remedy was proper. | No actual controversy: in the challenged posting no qualified internal candidate was excluded; decision would be advisory/speculative. | Not ripe. Court held the dispute was speculative and AFSCME suffered no present hardship. |
| Scope of hearing officer authority: Did the award exceed the stipulated issue (single posting)? | The dispute concerned the practice generally, not just one posting; broad relief was warranted. | The hearing officer was limited to the written grievance and the stipulated issue (the specific posting). | Exceeded scope. The award went beyond the single posting and thus exceeded arbitrator authority. |
| Modification of MOU: Did the remedy impermissibly alter MOU terms by banning comparative analysis? | Comparative analysis effectively added an unapproved pre-test elimination step and should be barred. | The MOU authorizes "review of records" as a form of testing; comparative analysis understood as that review is permitted and the award altered the MOU. | Hearing officer exceeded authority. The remedy modified MOU terms by banning a method the MOU permits. |
| Extra-record evidence: Was AFSCME entitled to augment the administrative record with the hearing officer’s resume and related materials? | Materials showing the hearing officer’s expertise were relevant and could not properly be used at hearing. | Documents predated the hearing and could have been presented; AFSCME made no showing of diligence or excusable inability to present them earlier. | Trial court did not err. Court refused to admit extra-record evidence absent a showing under CCP §1094.5(e). |
Key Cases Cited
- Wilson & Wilson v. City Council of Redwood City, 191 Cal.App.4th 1559 (discusses ripeness and two-step ripeness test)
- City of Santa Monica v. Stewart, 126 Cal.App.4th 43 (ripeness; advisory opinions disfavored)
- Young v. City of Coronado, 10 Cal.App.5th 408 (standards for reviewing administrative mandamus petitions)
- American Indian Model Schools v. Oakland Unified School Dist., 227 Cal.App.4th 258 (de novo review for MOU interpretation)
- National City Police Officers' Assn. v. City of National City, 87 Cal.App.4th 1274 (MOU interpretation reviewed independently)
- Fairfield v. Superior Court of Solano County, 14 Cal.3d 768 (limits on admitting extra-record evidence on administrative mandamus)