San Diego Municipal Employees Ass'n v. Superior Court
143 Cal. Rptr. 3d 49
Cal. Ct. App.2012Background
- In 2011, petitioners circulated the Comprehensive Pension Reform Initiative (CPRI) to amend San Diego City's charter affecting retirement benefits.
- MEA, the exclusive bargaining unit for affected employees, alleged MMBA meet-and-confer obligations were violated before the CPRI was placed on the ballot and filed a UPC with PERB accompanied by a request for injunctive relief.
- PERB issued a complaint and sought injunctive relief in superior court to prevent the CPRI from being placed on the June 5, 2012 ballot pending the administrative process.
- The trial court denied PERB’s request for a preliminary injunction and MEA’s UPC proceeded administratively with an ALJ hearing scheduled for April 2012.
- City moved to stay the PERB administrative hearing and quash ALJ subpoenas; PERB opposed, MEA supported; the trial court granted the stay.
- MEA challenged the stay via writ; the issue is whether the trial court properly stayed the PERB administrative proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| PERB has exclusive initial jurisdiction over MMBA claims? | MEA asserts PERB has exclusive initial jurisdiction over claims that City violated the MMBA by failing to meet and confer. | City contends PERB proceedings should be stayed or excused because of lack of exhaustion or lack of PERB authority for this underlying dispute. | PERB has exclusive initial jurisdiction over MMBA unfair labor practice claims. |
| Was the stay of PERB proceedings proper? | ME A argues the stay preserves the status quo and prevents irreparable harm while the UPC is unresolved. | City asserts futility, lack of authority, and inadequacy of administrative remedies justify staying the PERB proceedings. | Trial court's stay was improper and must be vacated. |
| Does the futility exception excuse exhaustion here? | ME A contends futility does not apply because PERB proceedings could still develop the record and credibility of arguments. | City relies on Coachella Valley to claim futility since PERB would adjudicate and injunctive relief already sought. | Futility exception not satisfied; exhaustion required. |
| Does lack of authority excuse exhaustion here? | ME A argues PERB has authority to adjudicate MMBA claims, including conduct arguably violating the MMBA. | City argues PERB lacks jurisdiction to resolve the underlying dispute and thus exhaustion should be excused. | Lack of authority argument rejected; PERB has exclusive initial jurisdiction. |
| May PERB act in aid of its proceedings without violating its jurisdiction? | PERB sought injunctive relief to preserve the status quo pending administrative resolution. | City argues this use of power violates separation and undermines due process. | PERB’s use of injunctive relief and related procedures proper; does not require staying the proceedings. |
Key Cases Cited
- Coachella Valley Mosquito & Vector Control Dist. v. California Public Employment Relations Bd., 35 Cal.4th 1072 (Cal. 2005) (three-factor test to excuse exhaustion when agency lacks authority or for public interest)
- City of San Jose v. Operating Engineers Local Union No. 3, 49 Cal.4th 597 (Cal. 2010) (PERB has exclusive initial jurisdiction over MMBA claims)
- Seal Beach Police Officers Assn. v. City of Seal Beach, 36 Cal.3d 591 (Cal. 1984) (meet-and-confer obligations apply to city-sponsored measures, not citizen initiatives, under appropriate context)
- Cumero v. Public Employment Relations Bd., 49 Cal.3d 575 (Cal. 1989) (PERB may construe employee relations laws with constitutional considerations)
- Public Employment Relations Bd. v. Superior Court, 13 Cal.App.4th 1816 (Cal. App. 1993) (PERB injunctive relief context and administrative proceedings do not foreclose court review)
- Public Employment Relations Bd. v. Modesto City Schools Dist., 136 Cal.App.3d 881 (Cal. App. 1982) (standard for temporary relief to preserve status quo in PERB actions)