Amalgamated Transit Union v. San Joaqu (In re in Reg'l Transit Dist.)
| Decision Date | 08 May 2019 |
| Docket Number | C086260 |
| Citation | 248 Cal.Rptr.3d 227,36 Cal.App.5th 1 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | AMALGAMATED TRANSIT UNION, LOCAL 276 et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. SAN JOAQUIN REGIONAL TRANSIT DISTRICT, Defendant and Respondent. |
Neyhart, Anderson, Flynn & Grosboll and Benjamin K. Lunch, San Francisco, for Plaintiffs and Appellants Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 276 and Alan Wagner.
Palmer Kazanjian Wohl Hodson, Treaver K. Hodson, and Alexandra M. Asterlin, Sacramento, for Defendant and Respondent San Joaquin Regional Transit District.
This case involves the interpretation of provisions of the San Joaquin Regional Transit District Act ( Pub. Util. Code, § 50000, et seq. ) (Act)1 relating to the composition and selection of some members of the retirement board. Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 276 and its president, Alan Wagner (collectively, the Union) brought this mandamus petition against the San Joaquin Regional Transit District (the District), alleging the Union has the right to fill by appointment a vacancy on the District's retirement board, to ensure labor-management parity, as the Union claims is required by section 99159. The District proposes to conduct an election by all employees (not only union members) to fill the vacancy, as it claims is required by an earlier statute, section 50150. The trial court denied the petition and the Union timely appealed. After hearing oral argument, we vacated submission and ordered supplemental briefing, reserving the option to order further argument if we deemed it necessary. We do not.
After considering all the briefing and argument, we find the Union's position more persuasive. It harmonizes the two statutes, avoids any constitutional question, and is in accord with the use of the term "representative" in federal labor law and the long-standing practice of the parties--the only parties affected by the two statutes. Accordingly, we reverse.
The Act was passed in 1963. (See Stats. 1963, ch. 839, § 1, p. 2050.) The District was created in part to secure federal transportation funds, the acceptance of which came with certain federal obligations, including certain labor protections. (See Stockton Metropolitan Transit Dist. v. Amalgamated Transit Union (1982) 132 Cal.App.3d 203, 207-208, 212, 183 Cal.Rptr. 24 ; Stats. 2003, ch. 845, § 1(b), p. 6231.)
The original legislation provided that the District "shall create a retirement board of not more than five members, at least two members of which shall be the elected representatives of the employees , to administer the retirement system, and shall define its powers and duties and the tenure of the members." (§ 50150, italics added; Stats. 1963, ch. 839, ch. 1, p. 2050.) This provision of the Act has never been amended. In 2003 the legislature added section 99159. Section 99159 provides in part: "2 (Italics added.)
In an uncodified part of the 2003 legislation, the Legislature explained the evolution of public transit systems "through the takeover and consolidation of private transit operations," the need to ensure "strong standards of fiduciary duty" for retirement boards--in part emphasizing the importance that boards be comprised of "equal representation of labor and management" and be administered consistent with federal labor law--and referenced the passage of Proposition 162 (described, post ), which requires that public pension boards be "independent of the public agency governing board." (Stats. 2003, ch. 845, § 1, p. 6231.)
Proposition 162, the California Pension Protection Act of 1992, referenced in the 2003 legislation, was adopted at the November 3, 1992, General Election. As we explained in Westly v. Board of Administration (2003) 105 Cal.App.4th 1095, 130 Cal.Rptr.2d 149, Proposition 162 amended the California Constitution in part to prevent legislative interference with retirement funds and expanded the duties and powers of retirement boards, which were to have plenary authority and responsibility for the investment of moneys and administration of the particular retirement system, to be exercised to protect participants and beneficiaries. ( Id. at pp. 1100-1102 & fns. 6-8, pp. 1110-1112, 130 Cal.Rptr.2d 149 ; see also California State Employees' Assn. v. Board of Administration (2003) 113 Cal.App.4th 137, 144-145, 5 Cal.Rptr.3d 922 [].)
A key provision of Proposition 162 provides in full as follows:
"With regard to the retirement board of a public pension or retirement system which includes in its composition elected employee members, the number, terms, and method of selection or removal of members of the retirement board which were required by law or otherwise in effect on July 1, 1991, shall not be changed, amended, or modified by the Legislature unless the change, amendment, or modification enacted by the Legislature is ratified by a majority vote of the electors of the jurisdiction in which the participants of the system are or were, prior to retirement, employed." ( Cal. Const., art. XVI, § 17, subd. (f).)
The District has a retirement plan, restated effective June 20, 2014 (the Plan). The Plan was subject to collective bargaining between the District and the Union. The Plan provides for the administration by the Retirement Board (the Board), "which shall be composed of five (5) members, two (2) members as representatives of [the District] (one being a member of the [District's] Board of Directors and one Non-Represented Employee representative) and two (2) representatives of the Union, and one Umpire Member (who shall only participate as a member of the Retirement Board when there is a deadlock vote of the other four members)."
After a Union representative left the Board, the Union president appointed a new Union representative to the Board. The District took the position that the Union did not have authority to unilaterally appoint members to the Board; instead, the employee representatives must be elected by all employees (union and non-union) of the District. The District cited section 50150 as authority for its position. The District proposed to hold an election for the vacant Board seat. All employees would be eligible to nominate him or herself, another district employee, or a non-employee. The person receiving the most votes would be elected to fill the vacancy on the Board.
The Union objected to this proposal, arguing it was contrary to the negotiated provisions of the Plan and the provisions of section 99159. Further, the Union had learned the District passed bylaws for the Plan and objected that only the Board could adopt such bylaws.
The Union filed a petition for a writ of mandate seeking to compel the District to comply with section 99159, ordering the District to cease and desist from purporting to enact bylaws or otherwise interfering with the administration of the Plan, and for a temporary restraining order, temporary injunction, and permanent injunction to prevent the District from holding any election for the seats of Union members on the Board.
The trial court denied the Union's petition and the Union timely filed this appeal from the judgment.
( California Assn. for Health Services at Home v. State Dept. of Health Services (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 696, 704, 56 Cal.Rptr.3d 102.) Mandate is the appropriate remedy to enforce a mandatory statutory duty. ( Newland v. Kizer (1989) 209 Cal.App.3d 647, 655-656, 257 Cal.Rptr. 450.)
The facts are not disputed, and the parties generally agree the case presents issues of statutory interpretation to be reviewed de novo by this court. We agree with the parties. (See, e.g., California Correctional Supervisors Organization, Inc. v. Department of Corrections (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 824, 827, 117 Cal.Rptr.2d 595.)
The Union contends it alone is authorized to fill the vacancy on the Board because section 99159 requires "a retirement board composed of equal representation of labor and management. " (Id. , subd. (b).) The District contends section 50150 requires an election by all employees to fill the vacancy because the enacting legislation requires the District to "create a retirement board of not more than five members, at least two members of which shall be the elected representatives of the employees. "
The Union has two responses to the District's position. First, it contends section 99159, as the later statute, supersedes section 50150. In response, the District contends that under article XVI, section 17(f) of the California Constitution, the Legislature could not change "the method of selection" of members of the Board because it included "elected employee members."
The Union's second argument is that the two statutes, sections 50150 and 99159, should be harmonized and "elected representatives of the employees" in section 50150 should be read to mean Union appointed Board members. The Union asserts this interpretation of the statute is reflected in the terms of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sansen v. Aerojet Rocketdyne, Inc.
...can sometimes be used as a term of art. (See Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 276 v. San Joaquin Regional Transit Dist. (2019) 36 Cal.App.5th 1, 7 & fn. 3.) In this case, however, the trial court appears to have meant "union representative" to refer to a person who would be sent by Sansen's......
-
Sansen v. Aerojet Rocketdyne, Inc.
... ... because his union was not at the trial to support him. Jurors ... (See Amalgamated Transit Union, ... Local 276 v. San Joaquin Regional Transit Dist. (2019) ... 36 Cal.App.5th 1, 7 & fn. 3.) ... ...
- Jimmy Mettias v. Pep Boys Manny Moe & Jack of Cal.(In re Laosd Asbestos Cases)