Cnty. of Riverside v. Pub. Emp't Relations Bd.

• Decision Date: 30 March 2016
• Docket Number: D069065
• Citation: 200 Cal.Rptr.3d 573,246 Cal.App.4th 20
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD, Defendant and Appellant; Service Employees International Union, Local 721, Real Party in Interest and Appellant.

246 Cal.App.4th 20

200 Cal.Rptr.3d 573

COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, Plaintiff and Appellant,

v.PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD, Defendant and Appellant;

Service Employees International Union, Local 721, Real Party in Interest and Appellant.

D069065

Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Division 1, California.

Filed March 30, 2016

Wendi L. Ross, Sacramento, Mary Weiss, J. Felix De La Torre, Joseph Eckhart, Blaire Baily and Ronald R. Pearson for Defendant and Appellant Public Employment Relations Board.

Najeeb Khoury, Los Angeles, for Real Party in Interest and Appellant Service Employees International Union, Local 721.

The Zappia Law Firm, Edward P. Zappia and Anna Zappia, Los Angeles, for Plaintiff and Appellant County of Riverside.

Renne Sloan Holtzman Sakai, Timothy G. Yeung and Erich W. Shiners, Sacramento, for League of California Cities and California State Association of Counties as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Plaintiff and Appellant County of Riverside.

McCONNELL

, P.J.

INTRODUCTION

This case requires us to decide whether the provisions in the Meyers–Milias–Brown Act (Act) (Gov.Code, § 3500 et seq.

)¹ for impasse resolution through advisory factfinding (factfinding provisions) violate article XI, section 11, subdivision (a), of the California Constitution by delegating a county's or a city's home rule powers to a private person or body. We conclude the factfinding provisions do not violate this section of the California Constitution because the provisions do not divest a county or a city of its final decisionmaking authority.

This case also requires us to decide whether the Act's factfinding provisions apply to impasses arising during the negotiation of any bargainable matter or only to impasses arising during the negotiation of a comprehensive memorandum of understanding (MOU). For the reasons stated in San Diego Housing Commission v. Public Employment Relations Board (2016) –––Cal.App.4th ––––, 200 Cal.Rptr.3d 629, 2016 WL 1242539

, we conclude the factfinding provisions apply to impasses arising during the negotiation of any bargainable matter.² As the trial court reached a different decision on this point, we reverse the judgment and the related writ and orders and remand the matter for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

BACKGROUND

The County of Riverside (County) is a local public agency subject to the Act. (§ 3501, subd. (c).) Service Employees International Union, Local 721 (Union) is an employee organization and the exclusive representative of certain County employees. The Public Employment Relations Board (Board) is a quasi-judicial administrative agency modeled after the National Labor Relations Board and administers the Act. (County of Los Angeles v. Los Angeles County Employee Relations Com. (2013) 56 Cal.4th 905, 916, 157 Cal.Rptr.3d 481, 301 P.3d 1102

(County of Los Angeles ); §§ 3501, subd. (f), 3509, subd. (a), 3541, subd. (g).)

The County implemented a new background check policy requiring information technology employees represented by the Union to pass a background check. An employee's failure to pass the background check provided grounds to discharge the employee. The County and the Union entered negotiations over the effects of the policy, but were unable to reach an agreement. After the Union declared an impasse and the County declined the Union's offer to mediate the dispute, the Union submitted a request to the Board for factfinding. The Board granted the Union's request over the County's objection.³

The County filed a petition for writ of mandate and a complaint for declaratory relief, injunctive relief, breach of contract, and statutory and constitutional violations (complaint). The County claimed the Act's factfinding provisions apply only to impasses arising from negotiations for a new or successor MOU, not to discrete bargainable issues. The County further claimed the Act's factfinding procedures violated the County's constitutional right to establish compensation for its employees.

To bring the complaint to a decision point, the County filed three concurrent motions. After a stipulation by the parties, the court ordered one of the motions taken off calendar and set a hearing date and briefing schedule for the remaining motions (scheduling order). While the County's remaining motions were pending, the Board filed a special motion to strike the complaint under Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16

, commonly referred to as the anti-SLAPP (strategic lawsuit against public participation) statute. (Equilon Enterprises v. Consumer Cause, Inc. (2002) 29 Cal.4th 53, 57 & fn. 1, 124 Cal.Rptr.2d 507, 52 P.3d 685.) In the motion, the Board argued the court should strike the County's complaint because the complaint was based on the Board's statutorily required and protected activity of processing the Union's factfinding request, and the complaint lacked merit.

The Board scheduled the anti-SLAPP motion to be heard before the County's motions. After the Board filed the anti-SLAPP motion, the County unilaterally obtained an earlier hearing date for its motions and refiled them. The Board then filed an ex parte application seeking confirmation of the scheduling order and sanctions under Code of Civil Procedure section 177.5

against the County for violating it. The court granted the application in part by ordering the anti-SLAPP motion, the Board's request for sanctions, and the County's motions to be heard on the day on which the County's motions had originally been set in the scheduling order.

At the motion hearing, the court denied the anti-SLAPP motion, finding the anti-SLAPP statute did not apply because the gravamen of the County's claim did not involve protected activity. The court also denied the Board's request for sanctions under Code of Civil Procedure section 177.5

, finding that, although the County technically violated the scheduling order, the County's actions were substantially justified by the parties' general lack of communication and gamesmanship.

As to the County's motions, the court denied one of the motions, which challenged the constitutionality of the Act's factfinding provisions, after finding the provisions were not unconstitutional because they did not deprive the County of its right to implement its last, best, and final offer. However, the court granted the other motion, which challenged the scope of the factfinding provisions, after finding the provisions applied only to impasses arising from negotiations for a successor or comprehensive MOU. The court subsequently issued an injunction and a writ of mandate precluding the Board from processing any factfinding requests under the Act not arising from negotiations for a new or successor MOU. The court also granted a motion by the County for $15,000 in attorney fees and costs under Code of Civil Procedure sections 128.5

and 425.16, subdivision (c)(1), after finding the Board's anti-SLAPP motion was frivolous. The court denied the County's request for attorney fees under Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5.

The Board appealed the writ, the injunction, the order denying the Board's request for sanctions under Code of Civil Procedure section 177.5

, the order denying the Board's anti-SLAPP motion, and the order awarding the County attorney fees and costs under Code of Civil Procedure sections 128.5 and 425.16, subdivision (c)(1). The County appealed the order denying its motion as to the constitutionality of the factfinding provisions and the order denying its motion for attorney fees under Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5.

DISCUSSION

I

Preliminarily, the County questions the Board's standing to appeal. Any party aggrieved by a judgment may appeal the judgment. (Code Civ. Proc., § 902

.) "An aggrieved person, for this purpose, is one whose rights or interests are injuriously affected by the decision in an immediate and substantial way, and not as a nominal or remote consequence of the decision." (In re K.C. (2011) 52 Cal.4th 231, 236, 128 Cal.Rptr.3d 276, 255 P.3d 953.) An aggrieved party includes a party against whom an appealable order or judgment has been entered. (Ely v. Frisbie (1861) 17 Cal. 250, 260.)

In this case, the court issued orders, a writ, and a judgment against the Board. The orders, writ, and judgment effectively nullify a Board decision regarding the application of the Act and require the Board to pay a significant attorney fees award. Accordingly, we conclude the orders, writ and judgment injuriously affected the Board's interests in an immediate and substantial way such that the Board is an aggrieved party with standing to appeal.

II

A

The County next contends the court erred in determining the Act's factfinding provisions do not interfere with a county's and city's home rule powers protected by article XI, section 11, subdivision (a), of the California Constitution

.⁴ The

County's contention presents a facial challenge to the Act's factfinding procedures, which requires the County to demonstrate that the procedures " ‘inevitably pose a present total and fatal conflict with applicable constitutional prohibitions.’ " (County of Sonoma v. Superior Court (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 322, 337, 93 Cal.Rptr.3d 39

(County of Sonoma ).) We review this challenge de novo. (Ibid . )

B

The California Constitution prohibits the Legislature from delegating "to a private person or body power to make, control, appropriate, supervise, or interfere with county or municipal corporation improvements, money, or property, or to levy taxes or assessments, or perform municipal functions." (Cal. Const., art. XI, § 11

, subd. (a).) "In deciding whether the Legislature has exceeded its power, we are guided ‘by well settled rules of constitutional construction. Unlike the federal Constitution, which is a grant of power to Congress, the California Constitution is a limitation or restriction on the powers of the Legislature. [Citations.] Two important consequences flow from this fact. First, the entire law-making authority of the state, except the...