Paulsen v. Local No. 856 of International Brotherhood of Teamsters
123 Cal. Rptr. 3d 332
Cal. Ct. App.2011Background
- Plaintiffs are current, former, and retired deputy probation officers employed by Marin County and members of Local 856.
- Local 856 and its agent Martinelli allegedly entered into a secret deal with the County to deprive plaintiffs of overtime pay and conceal their rights under the FLSA, while misclassifying them as exempt professionals.
- A November 6, 2006 meeting allegedly discussed potential FLSA noncompliance; Martinelli claimed defendants would investigate but did nothing to assist plaintiffs.
- First cause of action: breach of duty of fair representation, alleging a long-running scheme to misrepresent and deprive overtime rights and to act in bad faith.
- Second cause of action: common law breach of fiduciary duty by union representatives.
- Third cause of action: fraudulent concealment alleging deliberate concealment of nonexemption and entitlement to overtime from 1994 to present.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether BRD claim falls under PERB exclusive jurisdiction | Paulsen asserts MMBA not violated; BRD not an unfair practice. | Local 856 argues BRD breach is PERB unfair labor practice under MMBA. | BRD breach is PERB exclusive |
| Whether deputy probation officers are covered as peace officers for PERB | Paulsen contends deputies are not PERB-exclusively governed. | Defendants rely on statutory definitions to encompass peace officers. | Not explicitly detached; PERB authority applicable |
| Whether tort claims fall within PERB exclusive jurisdiction | Tort claims are distinct from unfair labor practices. | Tort claims are derivative of BRD and thus PERB-jurisdictional. | Tort claims fall within PERB exclusive jurisdiction |
| Whether class-action pleading defeats PERB exclusive jurisdiction | Class-action labeling does not remove PERB exclusivity. | PERB has standing issues with class-wide claims. | Class action does not negate PERB exclusivity |
Key Cases Cited
- City of San Jose v. Operating Engineers Local Union No. 3, 49 Cal.4th 597 (2010) (PERB exclusive initial jurisdiction under MMBA)
- Andrews v. Board of Supervisors, 134 Cal.App.3d 274 (1982) (MMBA implied duty of fair representation not explicit)
- Relyea v. Ventura County Fire Protection Dist., 2 Cal.App.4th 875 (1992) (MMBA bargaining rights and exclusive representation; limits on individual bargaining)
- Lane v. I.U.O.E. Stationary Engineers, 212 Cal.App.3d 164 (1989) (duty of fair representation arises from exclusive representation)
- Jones v. Omnitrans, 125 Cal.App.4th 273 (2004) (recognizes exclusive representation and related duties under MMBA)
- Placentia Fire Fighters v. City of Placentia, 57 Cal.App.3d 9 (1976) (early discussions of bargaining rights under MMBA)
- California Teachers’ Assn. v. Livingston Union School Dist., 219 Cal.App.3d 1503 (1990) (unfair labor practice context under MMBA)
- California School Employees Assn. v. Azusa Unified School Dist., 152 Cal.App.3d 580 (1984) (MMBA unfair labor practices guidance)
- Burke v. Ipsen, 189 Cal.App.4th 801 (2010) (PERB interpretations given deference; MMBA duties and remedies)
- California Public Employees Assn. v. City of Fontana, 67 Cal.App.4th 1215 (1998) (PERB jurisdiction and exhaustion considerations)