County of Riverside v. Superior Court
Citation | 132 Cal.Rptr.2d 713,30 Cal.4th 278,66 P.3d 718 |
Decision Date | 21 April 2003 |
Docket Number | No. S107126.,S107126. |
Court | California Supreme Court |
Parties | COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE et al., Petitioners, v. The SUPERIOR COURT of Riverside County, Respondent, Riverside Sheriffs Association, Real Party in Interest. |
William C. Katzenstein, County Counsel, Robert M. Pepper, Principal Deputy County Counsel; Howard, Rice, Nemerovski, Canady, Falk & Rabkin, Steven L. Mayer and Kimberly A. Bliss, San Francisco, for Petitioners.
JoAnne Speers, Sacramento, for League of California Cities as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Petitioners.
Kathleen Bales-Lange, County Counsel (Tulare), Teresa M. Saucedo, Deputy County Counsel; J. Dennis Crabb, County Counsel (Alpine); Bernard C. Barmann, Sr., County Counsel (Kern), Steven L. Sanders, Deputy County Counsel; Alan K. Marks, County Counsel (San Bernardino), Carol A. Greene, Deputy County Counsel; John J. Sansone, County Counsel (San Diego), Diane Bardsley, Assistant County Counsel; and Frank 0. Sieh, County Counsel (Ventura) for County of Tulare, County of Alpine, County of Kern, County of San Bernardino, County of San Diego and County of Ventura as Amici Curiae on behalf of Petitioners.
Timothy A. Bittle for Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Petitioners.
No appearance for Respondent.
Olins, Foerster & Hayes and Dennis J. Hayes, San Diego, for Real Party in Interest.
Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Manuel M. Medeiros, State Solicitor General, Andrea Lynn Hoch, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Louis R. Mauro, Acting Assistant Attorney General, and Christopher E. Krueger, Deputy Attorney General, as Amici Curiae on behalf of Real Party in Interest.
Silver, Hadden & Silver, Stephen H. Silver, Santa Monica; Carroll, Burdick & McDonough and Ronald Yank, San Francisco, for Ventura County Deputy Sheriffs' Association et al., as Amici Curiae on behalf of Real Party in Interest.
Olson, Hagel, Waters & Fishburn, Olson, Hagel & Fishburn, George Waters, N. Eugene Hill, Sacramento, Thomas E. Gauthier; Woodley & McGillivary and Thomas A. Woodley for California Professional Firefighters, Peace Officers Research Association of California and International Association of Fire Fighters, AFL-CIO, C.L.C., as Amici Curiae on behalf of Real Party in Interest.
Green & Shinee and Helen L. Schwab, Encino, for the Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs, the Pasadena Police Officers Association, the Torrance Police Officers Association, the Glendale Police Officers Association, the Bell Police Officers Association and the West Covina Police Officers Association as Amici Curiae on behalf of Real Party in Interest.
Lackie & Dammeier, Dieter C. Dammeier, Rancho Cucamonga, and Michael A. Morguess for Los Angeles Police Protective League et al., as Amici Curiae on behalf of Real Party in Interest.
Davis & Reno and Alan C. Davis for Daly City Firefighters, Local 1879, et al, as Amici Curiae on behalf of Real Party in Interest.
The Legislature recently enacted Senate Bill No. 402 (1999-2000 Reg. Sess.) (Senate Bill 402), which requires counties and other local agencies to submit, under certain circumstances, to binding arbitration of economic issues that arise during negotiations with unions representing firefighters or law enforcement officers. (Code Civ. Proc, § 1299 et seq.) We must determine whether this legislation violates either or both of two provisions of article XI of the California Constitution.1 Section 1, subdivision (b), states that a county's "governing body shall provide for the ... compensation ... of employees." Section 11, subdivision (a), forbids the Legislature to "delegate to a private person or body power to ... interfere with county or municipal corporation ... money ... or perform municipal functions."
We conclude, as did the Court of Appeal, that Senate Bill 402 violates both constitutional provisions. It deprives the county of its authority to provide for the compensation of its employees (§ 1, subd. (b)) and delegates to a private body the power to interfere with county financial affairs and to perform a municipal function (§ 11, subd. (a)).
Riverside County (the County) and the Riverside Sheriffs Association (Sheriffs Association) engaged in negotiations over compensation for employees of the probation department. In May 2001, they reached an impasse. The Sheriffs Association requested that the dispute be submitted to binding arbitration pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1299 et seq. The County refused, claiming that those provisions violate the California Constitution. The Sheriffs Association filed an action in the superior court to compel arbitration. The court ordered arbitration. It found the binding arbitration law constitutional, explaining,
The County filed a petition for a writ of mandate in the Court of Appeal asking that court to order the superior court to set aside its order compelling arbitration and enter a new order denying the motion to compel arbitration. The Court of Appeal granted the petition. It found that Senate Bill 402 violates both section 1, subdivision (b), and section 11, subdivision (a). We granted the Sheriffs Association's petition for review.
Senate Bill 402, entitled "Arbitration of Firefighter and Law Enforcement Officer Labor Disputes," added section 1299 et seq. to the Code of Civil Procedure. (Stats.2000, ch. 906, § 2.) The Court of Appeal opinion describes the bill: The bill applies to any local agency or any entity acting as an agent of a local agency, but it does not apply to the State of California even acting as such an agent. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1299.3, subd. (c).)
Senate Bill 402 includes legislative findings. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1299.)
The County argues that the Legislature's compelling it to enter into binding arbitration of compensation issues violates section 1, subdivision (b), and section 11, subdivision (a). At the outset, we emphasize that the issue is not whether a county may voluntarily submit compensation issues to arbitration, i.e., whether the county may delegate its own authority, but whether the Legislature may compel a county to submit to arbitration involuntarily. The issue involves the division of authority between the state and the county, not what the county may itself do. (See Adams v. Wolff (1948) 84 Cal.App.2d 435, 442, 190 P.2d 665 [ ].)
In deciding whether the Legislature has exceeded its power, we are guided " (Methodist Hosp. of Sacramento v. Saylor (1971) 5 Cal.3d 685, 691, 97 Cal.Rptr. 1, 488 P.2d 161; accord, Pacific Legal Foundation v. Brown (1981) 29 Cal.3d 168, 180, 172 Cal.Rptr. 487, 624 P.2d 1215.) On the other hand, "we also must enforce the provisions of our Constitution and `may not lightly disregard or blink at ... a clear constitutional mandate.' "(Amwest Surety Ins. Co. v. Wilson (1995) 11 Cal.4th 1243, 1252, 48 Cal. Rptr.2d 12, 906 P.2d 1112.)
We discuss the two...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
City of Palo Alto v. Pub. Emp't Relations Bd.
... ... H041407 Court of Appeal, Sixth District, California. Filed November 23, 2016 Renne Sloan ... In May 2010, the Santa Clara County civil grand jury issued a report that analyzed the employment costs of ... v ... Superior Court (2012) 206 Cal.App.4th 1447, 1458, 143 Cal.Rptr.3d 49.) "PERB is ... To support this argument, the City relies on County of Riverside v ... Superior Court (2003) 30 Cal.4th 278, 132 Cal.Rptr.2d 713, 66 P.3d ... ...
-
City of Huntington Beach v. Becerra
...to general laws. ( Id. at pp. 600-601, fn. 11, 205 Cal.Rptr. 794, 685 P.2d 1145.)In County of Riverside v. Superior Court (2003) 30 Cal.4th 278, 282, 132 Cal.Rptr.2d 713, 66 P.3d 718 ( County of Riverside ), the California Supreme Court struck down, as violating county home rule constitutio......
-
Trades Council v. Duncan
...Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (2004) 34 Cal.4th 733, 737, 21 Cal.Rptr.3d 676, 101 P.3d 563; County of Riverside v. Superior Court (2003) 30 Cal.4th 278, 292, 132 Cal. Rptr.2d 713, 66 P.3d 718; Alford v. Superior Court (2003) 29 Cal.4th 1033, 1040, 130 Cal.Rptr.2d 672, 63 P.3d 228.) In the rar......
-
Lockyer v. City and County of San Francisco
...method of obtaining a judicial determination of the validity of the statute. (See, e.g., County of Riverside v. Superior Court (2003) 30 Cal.4th 278, 132 Cal.Rptr.2d 713, 66 P.3d 718 [impingement on county's home rule authority]; StarKist Foods, Inc. v. County of Los Angeles (1986) 42 Cal.3......
-
Can the State Use Its Spending Powers to Circumvent Charter Cities' Home Rule Authority?
...See Superior Court's 8/6/14 Tentative Ruling, p. 2.28. City of El Centro v. Lanier, et al., Fourth Appellate Dist., Case No. D066755.29. 30 Cal. 4th 278 (2003).30. See, e.g., County of Los Angeles v. Riley, 6 Cal. 2d 625, 626-627 (1936), City of Garden Grove v. Superior Court, 157 Cal. App.......
-
Public Sector Case Notes
...Code § 3505.4(d)(4)-(7).12. San Diego Housing Comm'n v. Public Employment Relations Bd. (SEIU Local 221), 246 Cal. App. 4th 1 (2016).13. 30 Cal. 4th 278 (2003).14. 173 Cal. App. 4th 322 (2009).15. 246 Cal. App. 4th at...