Singletary v. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 18

In Singletary v. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 18 (2012) 212 Cal.App.4th 34, the superior court dismissed an action under the MMBA, finding that under Government Code section 3509, subdivision (d), the Employee Relations Board of the City of Los Angeles (ERB) had exclusive jurisdiction over the labor dispute. (Singletary, supra, at p. 37.) The Court of Appeal explained: "In 2000, the Legislature extended PERB's jurisdiction to cover matters arising under the MMBA through enactment of section 3509, which became effective July 1, 2001. (Stats. 2000, ch. 901, 8, p. 6607.) Section 3509, subdivision (b) now provides in relevant part that 'The initial determination as to whether the charge of unfair practice is justified and, if so, the appropriate remedy necessary to effectuate the purposes of this chapter, shall be a matter within the exclusive jurisdiction of PERB . . . .' The legislature recognized that the MMBA had 'no effective enforcement procedures except for court action, which is time-consuming and expensive. One of the basic principles of an effective collective bargaining law should be to provide for enforcement by an administrative agency with expertise in labor relations. The appropriate role for the courts is to serve as an appellate body.' (Assem. Com. on Appropriations Analysis of Sen. Bill No. 739 (1999-2000 Reg. Sess.) as amended June 6, 2000, p. 2.) These changes had the effect of removing from the courts their initial jurisdiction over MMBA unfair practice charges. "As a result, section 3509, subdivision (b) provides, 'a complaint alleging any violation of the MMBA . . . shall be processed as an unfair practice charge by PERB. The initial determination as to whether the charge of unfair practice is justified and, if so, the appropriate remedy necessary to effectuate the purposes of this chapter, shall be a matter within the exclusive jurisdiction of PERB . . . .' This enactment removed 'from the courts their initial jurisdiction over MMBA unfair practice charges' and vested such jurisdiction in PERB. Thus, PERB has exclusive initial jurisdiction to determine an unfair practice charge. " (Singletary v. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 18, supra, 212 Cal.App.4th at pp. 42-43.) The court noted that ERB was created "before PERB, and thus the MMBA carved out an exception for ERB" under section 3509, subdivision (d). (Singletary v. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 18, supra, 212 Cal.App.4th at p. 43.) Section 3507, subdivision (a), authorized the City of Los Angeles to adopt rules and regulations implementing the MMBA, and the City did so. The City's ERO expressly granted ERB the power to resolve labor issues such as the one involved in Singletary. (Singletary, supra, at p. 44.) The Singletary court found that the plaintiffs' interpretation of section 3509, subdivision (d), that an unfair labor practice charge can be filed in the superior court in the first instance, "would nullify the stated legislative purpose of providing primary jurisdiction in personnel boards for review of violations of the MMBA. Given that the City's ERB was created in 1971, before the establishment of PERB in 1975, when the Legislature acted in 2000 to expressly specify the means of review of decisions of PERB, the Legislature did not want to appear to nullify the powers of ERB. Consistent with this purpose, the word 'notwithstanding' that prefaces subdivision (d) of section 3509 does not operate to exempt ERB from the review provisions of section 3509, but is merely a recognition of ERB's continued autonomy as an employee relations board. This fact is recognized in the closing clause of subdivision (d), which states that ERB has the power to 'issue determinations and orders as the employee relations commissions deem necessary, consistent with and pursuant to the policies of this chapter.' ( 3509, subd. (d).) Thus, the provisions of section 3509, subdivisions (a) through (c), to the extent they delimit the jurisdiction of the courts vis--vis review of the actions of employee relations boards, apply equally to ERB except that those sections do nothing in derogation of ERB's powers." (Singletary v. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 18, supra, 212 Cal.App.4th at p. 46.) The Singletary court then added, "For this reason, even if plaintiffs had exhausted their administrative remedies by pursuing their claims before ERB, plaintiffs could not have commenced their action in superior court to challenge ERB's ruling. Instead, pursuant to section 3509.5, subdivisions (b) and (c), they were required to commence a writ petition in the Court of Appeal within 30 days of the adverse decision. As a result, the trial court did not err in dismissing the action for lack of jurisdiction." (Singletary v. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 18, supra, 212 Cal.App.4th at p. 46, fn. omitted.)