Orange County Water District v. Public Employment Relations Board
8 Cal. App. 5th 52
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Orange County Water District (the District) and the Orange County Water District Employees Association (the Association) were parties to a collective bargaining MOU covering 184 unit employees (126 dues-paying members).
- In negotiations the Association proposed a “modified agency shop” that would require only employees hired on or after a future date to join the union or pay a service fee; current employees would be excluded.
- The District refused to consent to holding an SMCS election on the Association’s petition, asserting Government Code §3502.5 does not authorize an agency shop that applies to fewer than all bargaining-unit employees.
- The Association filed an unfair practice charge with PERB; an ALJ and then PERB found the District committed an unfair practice by refusing to participate in the petitioned-for election.
- The District petitioned for writ review in the Court of Appeal. The court denied the petition, holding §3502.5 authorizes the modified agency shop and the District’s refusal was unlawful.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Association) | Defendant's Argument (District) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §3502.5 permits an agency shop that applies only to future hires (a "modified agency shop") | §3502.5 defines an agency shop in terms of an individual employee’s condition of employment, so a modified agency shop falls within that definition and is authorized | §3502.5 must apply uniformly to the entire bargaining unit; an agency shop cannot lawfully apply only to a subset of employees | Held: §3502.5 does not require an agency shop to apply to all current and future unit members; a modified agency shop is permitted |
| Whether the Association satisfied §3502.5(b) procedural prerequisites to trigger an election | The Association followed the statutory process (requested bargaining, waited 7 days, negotiated 30 days, filed a petition signed by ≥30% of unit) | District did not dispute the procedural compliance but argued substantive invalidity of the proposed arrangement | Held: Procedural prerequisites were satisfied, obligating the District to engage in the election process (it could not withhold consent on the statutory-interpretation ground) |
| Whether prior authority (City of Hayward / Knox) precludes modified agency shops | Association: prior cases and Knox do not interpret §3502.5 to forbid modified agency shops; Knox addressed First Amendment limits, not the unit scope | District: City of Hayward and Knox indicate agency shops apply to all employees and support a uniform-application requirement | Held: Neither City of Hayward (pre-§3502.5) nor Knox (First Amendment case) supports the District’s uniform-application argument |
| Whether permitting modified agency shops frustrates rescission rights or constitutional limits | Association: modified shops reduce free-riding over time; §3502.5(d) rescission and First Amendment safeguards remain viable; nothing in statute forbids phased application | District: Modified shop would disenfranchise new hires from rescinding and increase free riders; raises First Amendment concerns | Held: Court rejected the argument that modified shops render §3502.5(d) meaningless and noted constitutional concerns (fee use, etc.) must be addressed if and when fees are imposed; holding limited to statutory authorization for the election |
Key Cases Cited
- Martinez v. Combs, 49 Cal.4th 35 (statutory construction principles govern interpretation)
- County of Los Angeles v. Los Angeles County Employee Relations Com., 56 Cal.4th 905 (MMBA framework and PERB deference)
- Knox v. Service Employees Int’l Union, 132 S. Ct. 2277 (First Amendment limits on compelled fees; did not define scope of §3502.5)
- Abood v. Detroit Bd. of Educ., 431 U.S. 209 (rationale for agency/union fees to prevent free-riding)
- Teachers v. Hudson, 475 U.S. 292 (procedural safeguards under Abood)
- City of Hayward v. United Public Employees, 54 Cal.App.3d 761 (pre-§3502.5 discussion of agency shop; not controlling for §3502.5 interpretation)