Ass'n for L. A. Deputy Sheriffs v. Cnty. of L. A., B289597
| Decision Date | 02 December 2019 |
| Docket Number | B289597 |
| Citation | 42 Cal.App.5th 918,256 Cal.Rptr.3d 139 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | ASSOCIATION FOR LOS ANGELES DEPUTY SHERIFFS, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, Defendant and Respondent. |
Rains Lucia Stern St. Phalle & Silver, Jacob A. Kalinski, Santa Monica, and Brian P. Ross for Plaintiff and Appellant.
Miller Barondess, Mira Hashmall and Emily A. Sanchirico, Los Angeles, for Defendant and Respondent.
The Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs (ALADS) appeals from a judgment following the trial court’s ruling sustaining a demurrer to ALADS’s complaint without leave to amend. ALADS sued respondent County of Los Angeles (County) concerning the County’s alleged breach of a labor agreement. The trial court sustained the County’s demurrer on the sole ground that ALADS failed to exhaust the administrative remedies available under the labor agreement before filing suit.
We reverse that ruling. ALADS’s complaint alleges that the County failed to comply with compensation provisions described in a November 2015 memorandum of understanding between ALADS and the County (the MOU). Those provisions required the County to match compensation increases given to other County safety employee unions. Thus, the issues that ALADS raises in this action and the relief that it seeks apply to all its members.
On the other hand, the grievance procedures under the MOU are only available to individual employees and are not binding on any other parties. Because those procedures would require each of the thousands of individual ALADS members to pursue a grievance through arbitration to obtain the relief that ALADS seeks in this lawsuit, they are not adequate. The inadequacy of available administrative procedures is a well-established exception to the rule that a party must exhaust administrative remedies before seeking judicial relief.
The trial court ruled only on the exhaustion issue. The County raised a number of other grounds in support of its demurrer and argues those grounds again on appeal as alternative grounds to affirm the trial court’s ruling. One of those grounds is that ALADS should have first pursued the claims in its fourth, fifth, and eighth causes of action alleging violations of the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act (MMBA; Gov. Code, § 3500 et seq. ), in proceedings before the Los Angeles County Employee Relations Commission (ERCOM).1 We agree. ERCOM has exclusive initial jurisdiction over such claims, and ALADS’s argument that ERCOM could not provide binding relief is insufficient to excuse its obligation to first pursue those claims administratively.
With respect to the County’s other alternative arguments, we hold that: (1) ALADS’s seventh, ninth, and tenth causes of action for declaratory relief no longer address any actual controversy in light of our ruling on the inadequacy of administrative remedies under the MOU, and the trial court’s ruling should therefore be affirmed for those causes of action; (2) ALADS should be given leave to amend its third cause of action to add as defendants those County officials necessary to seek writ relief; and (3) ALADS’s second cause of action for breach of contract and its eleventh cause of action for alleged breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing adequately state claims for relief.
Accordingly, we will reverse the trial court’s ruling in part, affirm in part on alternative grounds, and remand for further proceedings on ALADS’s complaint. ALADS’s first, second, sixth, and eleventh causes of action may proceed; ALADS will be given leave to amend its third cause of action; ALADS’s fourth, fifth, and eighth causes of action will be struck without prejudice pending ALADS’s exhaustion of administrative remedies concerning those claims with ERCOM; and ALADS’s seventh, ninth, and tenth causes of action will be struck because they do not address a current controversy in light of our holdings.
ALADS represents nonmanagement deputy sheriffs and peace officers employed in the County District Attorney’s office. Management peace officers in those law enforcement agencies are represented by another employee collective bargaining unit, the Los Angeles County Professional Peace Officers Association (PPOA).
ALADS’s complaint alleges that the County failed to comply with two compensation provisions in the MOU.2 Each of those provisions required the County to match compensation increases given to other County employee groups. One such provision (the ATB clause) applied if "any recognized County safety bargaining unit reach[es] a signed agreement that results in a higher across-the-board (ATB) percent increase for any given year" than provided to ALADS members. The other provision (the EE clause) applied if "any recognized County safety bargaining unit reach[es] a signed agreement that results in an economic enhancement" greater than that provided to ALADS’s members. An economic enhancement was defined as any "uniform allowance, post pay, standby pay, night shift differential, step increase, vacation time accrual or cash out, holiday pay or cash out, longevity pay, bonus, stipend, incentive pay or lump sum payment."
The MOU was in effect from February 1, 2015, to January 31, 2018. In May 2017, the County Board of Supervisors approved a salary adjustment for sworn management peace officers employed by the sheriff’s department and the district attorney’s office and represented by PPOA. Pursuant to that adjustment, such employees who have a supervisory certificate from the California Commission on Peace Officers Standards and Training (POST) received an additional 1.5 percent in salary effective July 1, 2017, and an additional 2.0 percent in salary effective July 1, 2018.
ALADS alleges that because "the vast majority (if not all) of the individuals represented by PPOA possess or can readily obtain Supervisory POST Certificates, the provision of additional Supervisory POST pay is the equivalent of an across-the-board increase, triggering the ATB Clause." It also alleges that the POST pay increase was an "economic enhancement" that triggered the EE clause.
The MOU contains two appendices describing separate grievance procedures for ALADS’s sheriff deputies and district attorney peace officers. The two grievance procedures contain different definitions of a "grievance."3 However, the administrative process involved in the grievance procedures is generally the same for both groups.
The sheriff’s department grievance procedure recommends that an employee with a grievance first seek a resolution through informal discussions with a supervisor. If the grievance is not resolved through such informal discussion, the employee may then pursue formal proceedings. The first step in such proceedings is consideration of the grievance by a "third level supervisor or middle management representative." The employee may then seek a hearing with a review board, consisting of the employee’s division chief, the area commander "in the employee’s chain of command," and up to two additional members of the sheriff’s department selected by the employee. The review board issues a recommendation to the sheriff. The decision of the sheriff "or his/her designated alternate" is final, subject to a request to pursue arbitration with an appointed arbitrator.
Only grievances "which directly concern or involve the interpretation or application of the specific terms and provisions of [the MOU] and which are brought by an employee who was represented by ALADS in any steps of the grievance procedure may be submitted to arbitration." ALADS initiates arbitration by sending a written request to ERCOM.
The results of arbitration are binding on the County "[t]o the extent the decision and award of the arbitrator does not require legislative action by the Board of Supervisors." Arbitration decisions concerning particular designated articles of the MOU are also nonbinding. Such nonbinding decisions include those arising from the "Renegotiation" article in the MOU, which contains both the ATB clause and the EE clause.
Like the grievance procedure for sheriff deputies, the formal procedure governing district attorney peace officers establishes various stages of internal review followed by arbitration. The grievances that are subject to arbitration, the arbitration procedure, and the categories of binding and nonbinding results are the same for district attorney peace officers and for sheriff deputies.
ALADS alleges that, in June 2017, "out of an abundance of caution (because ALADS does not concede that the grievance procedures set forth in the ALADS MOU provide adequate administrative remedies)," ALADS initiated two grievances concerning the County’s alleged failure to comply with the ATB and EE clauses "on behalf of all of its members." One grievance concerned sheriff deputies and the other concerned district attorney employees. After proceeding through all the preliminary steps of the grievance process, and after ERCOM had scheduled a hearing on October 23, 2017, concerning ALADS’s subsequent request for arbitration, the County allegedly "objected to ALADS’ requests for arbitration on the grounds that ALADS could not initiate a grievance on behalf of the individuals it represents."4 At the hearing, ERCOM "directed that the grievances as presented be scheduled for arbitration, and advised that the arbitrator could rule on the County’s objections."
According to a verified complaint that ALADS filed in another action concerning the ATB and EE clauses (which we have judicially noticed at the County’s request), the arbitrator handling the grievances subsequently took the scheduled arbitrations off calendar as a result of the County’s refusal to comply with a discovery order.
ALADS filed its complaint in this action on November 22, 2017. The complaint alleges 11 causes...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ass'n for L. A. Deputy Sheriffs v. Cnty. of L. A.
...administrative remedies are inadequate, so dismissal on that ground was improper. ( Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs v. County of Los Angeles (2019) 42 Cal.App.5th 918, 256 Cal.Rptr.3d 139 ( ALADS 2019 ).) We further conclude, however, dismissal was proper because ALADS's petitio......
-
Johar v. Cal. Unemployment Ins. Appeals Bd., A162563
...of the contract.’ " ( Guerrieri v. Severini (1958) 51 Cal.2d 12, 18, 330 P.2d 635 ; Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs v. County of Los Angeles (2019) 42 Cal.App.5th 918, 940, 256 Cal.Rptr.3d 139.)In the eight days between Johar's departure and October 31 (the "quit" date SWS repor......
-
A.D.E. Sys., Inc. v. Energy Labs, Inc.
...that he will not or cannot substantially perform essential terms thereof’ " ( Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs v. County of Los Angeles, 42 Cal. App. 5th 918, 940, 256 Cal.Rptr.3d 139, quoting Guerrieri v. Severini, 51 Cal 2d 12, 18, 330 P.2d 635, 638 ). Here, the cause of action......
-
Johar v. Cal. Unemployment Ins. Appeals Bd.
... ... Brown, Jennifer G. Perkell, ... Supervising Deputy Attorneys General, Julia A. Clayton, ... Ricardo ... ( Messenger Courier Assn. of Americas v. California ... Unemployment Ins ... Sheriffs v. County of Los Angeles (2019) 42 Cal.App.5th ... ...
-
Litigation & Case Law Update
...governing the permitting process.LABOR & EMPLOYMENT Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs v. County of Los Angeles (2019) 42 Cal.App.5th 918.Administrative remedies for individual union members were inadequate for class claims brought by union against county alleging breach of labor a......