Service Employees International Union, Local 1021 v. County of San Joaquin
135 Cal. Rptr. 3d 844
Cal. Ct. App.2011Background
- SEIU appeals trial court denial of petition to compel arbitration over Riedinger's termination; County refused arbitration after retirement benefits began during arbitrator selection.
- MOU dated December 12, 2006 between County and SEIU provides for arbitration as an appeal option for disciplinary actions; paragraph 20 is supercession clause.
- Riedinger, represented by SEIU, was terminated Feb 18, 2009 following a Skelly hearing; SEIU requested arbitration Feb 20, 2009.
- Riedinger applied for retirement in March 2009 and began receiving benefits in April 2009.
- Arbitrator was selected May 2010; County later refused to participate in arbitration in July 2010.
- Trial court denied the petition on grounds that MOU did not create an arbitration agreement with former employees and that retirement deprived the arbitrator of jurisdiction; appellate court reverses.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the MOU create an arbitration agreement for disciplinary actions? | SEIU argues the MOU permits arbitration for disciplinary actions by SEIU members. | County contends the MOU does not bind it to arbitrate disciplinary actions with former employees. | Yes; the MOU constitutes an agreement to arbitrate disciplinary actions. |
| Does retirement of an employee waive the right to arbitrate the termination? | Retirement does not bar arbitration or waive the contractual right. | Retirement may defeat arbitration rights once employment ends. | No waiver; retirement does not extinguish the right to arbitrate. |
| Does retirement deprive the arbitrator of jurisdiction over the dispute? | Arbitrator's power is contractual and not defeated by retirement. | Retirement may remove the dispute from arbitration-related jurisdiction. | No; arbitrator's powers are defined by the agreement, not by statutory jurisdiction. |
| Is the MOU's integration with Civil Service Rule 18 consistent with a contract-based arbitration right? | MOU's procedures and supersession clause make arbitration contractual and enforceable. | Rule 18 governs arbitration as an administrative process, not a private contract. | MOU prevails; arbitration right is contractual. |
Key Cases Cited
- Moncharsh v. Heily & Blase, 3 Cal.4th 1 (Cal. 1992) (strong public policy favoring arbitration; contract governs details)
- United Public Employees v. City and County of San Francisco, 53 Cal.App.4th 1021 (Cal. App. 1997) (arbitration petition governed by contract; scope defined by agreement)
- Christensen v. Dewor Developments, 33 Cal.3d 778 (Cal. 1983) (tests for waiver of arbitration; burden of proof heavy)
- Davis v. Blue Cross of Northern California, 25 Cal.3d 418 (Cal. 1979) (test for waiver includes inconsistent conduct and delay)
- County of Los Angeles Dept. of Health Services v. Civil Service Com. of County of Los Angeles, 180 Cal.App.4th 391 (Cal. App. 2009) (retirement can affect jurisdiction analysis for civil service bodies; distinguished here)