Singletary v. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 18
212 Cal. App. 4th 34
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Plaintiffs, DWP security guards and members of Local 18, allege Local 18 failed to ensure fair overtime distribution under the MOU.
- MOU (Oct 1, 2005–Sept 30, 2010) required overtime to be divided as equally as possible among those available in the same position and location.
- DWP policy favored assigning overtime to those with the least accumulated overtime, within 40 hours of the lowest total.
- A joint labor/management committee was created by Appendix D to address grievances about employment terms and conditions.
- Plaintiffs raised complaints to Local 18 representatives; alleged union leadership impeded the committee and its efficacy.
- Plaintiffs filed unfair practice charges with PERB/ERB in 2009; ERB advised no prima facie ERO violation, though grievances under the MOU might exist.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is ERB's jurisdiction exclusive at initiation over MMBA unfair practice claims? | ERB does not clearly have exclusive initial jurisdiction under §3509(d). | ERB shares the exclusive initial jurisdiction with PERB; §3509 and related provisions govern review similarly. | ERB has exclusive initial jurisdiction similar to PERB; courts lack subject matter jurisdiction to hear the MMBA claim. |
| Did plaintiffs exhaust administrative remedies before seeking judicial relief? | Exhaustion was unneeded or exhausted when ERB proceedings were available. | Exhaustion required; ERB proceedings must be pursued first and review follows under §3509.5. | Exhaustion required; even if exhausted, review procedures under §3509.5 govern, leading to dismissal for lack of jurisdiction. |
| Does subdivision (d) of §3509 palliate ERB’s authority to hear MMBA claims against the City of Los Angeles? | Subdivision (d) preserves ERB autonomy but does not necessarily override court review. | Subdivision (d) preserves ERB’s ongoing authority and does not allow courts to adjudicate MMBA claims. | Subdivision (d) preserves ERB autonomy and does not permit ordinary court review; ERB has authority consistent with the MMBA. |
| Did the trial court abuse its discretion by denying sanctions under §128.7? | Not applicable; the action has merit or is not frivolous. | Plaintiffs filed a frivolous action lacking exhaustion and factual support. | No abuse; the complaint was not frivolous given exhaustion questions and the ambiguous scope of §3509(d). |
Key Cases Cited
- Coachella Valley Mosquito & Vector Control Dist. v. California Public Employment Relations Bd., 35 Cal.4th 1072 (Cal. 2005) (MMBA enforcement and PERB/ERB jurisdictional framework)
- City of San Jose v. Operating Engineers Local Union No. 3, 49 Cal.4th 605 (Cal. 2010) (exclusive initial jurisdiction and review of PERB decisions)
- International Assn. of Fire Fighters, Local 188, AFL-CIO v. Public Employment Relations Bd., 51 Cal.4th 259 (Cal. 2011) (exhaustion and mandamus review carve-outs to PERB decisions)
- Santa Clara County Counsel Attys. Assn. v. Woodside, 7 Cal.4th 525 (Cal. 1994) (initial enforcement mechanisms for MMBA rights)
- Coachella Valley Mosquito & Vector Control Dist. v. California Public Employment Relations Bd., 35 Cal.4th 1072 (Cal. 2005) (MMBA enforcement and PERB/ERB jurisdictional framework)
- Burke v. Ipsen, 189 Cal.App.4th 801 (Cal. App. 2010) (PERB interpretation and MMBA authorities (appellate))