County Sanitation Dist. No. 2 of Los Angeles County v. Los Angeles County Employees Ass'n, Local 660, Service Employees Intern. Union AFL-CIO

Citation195 Cal.Rptr. 567,147 Cal.App.3d 990
Decision Date12 October 1983
Docket NumberAFL-CIO
PartiesCOUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 2 OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY, a public agency, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. LOS ANGELES COUNTY EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, LOCAL 660, SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION; Victor N. Hochee, Harry Gluck, Jack Roberts, Anthony Butka, Eugene Miller, Gary Schalander, Billy Manning, Defendants and Appellants. Civ. 66088.
CourtCalifornia Court of Appeals

For Opinion on Hearing, see 214 Cal.Rptr. 424, 699 P.2d 835.

Geffner & Satzman by Leo Geffner, Los Angeles, for defendants and appellants.

Musick, Peeler & Garrett by Stuart W. Rudnick, Steven D. Weinstein, and Neil O. Andrus, Los Angeles, for plaintiff and respondent.

George Agnost, City Atty., and Philip S. Ward and Steven A. Diaz, Deputy City Attys., amicus curiae.

GATES, Associate Justice.

Defendants Los Angeles County Employees Association, Local 660, Service Employees International Union, AFL-CIO; Victor N. Hochee; Harry Gluck; and Jack Roberts (Local 660) appeal from the judgment awarding plaintiff County Sanitation District No. 2 of Los Angeles County (District) damages in the sum of $246,904, prejudgment interest in the amount of $87,615.22 and costs of $874.65.

Local 660 contends: "[I.] Whether a public employees strike provides a tort cause of action for damages is an unresolved issue in California. [II.] The trial court committed prejudicial error in granting excessive, unreasonable and unlawful compensatory damages."

The District is a public agency organized pursuant to the provisions of the County Sanitation District Act (Health & Saf.Code, §§ 4700-4789) and is charged with providing, operating and maintaining sewage transport and treatment facilities and landfill refuse disposal sites throughout the County of Los Angeles. 1 It employs some 500 workers who are directly or indirectly responsible for the operation and maintenance of its facilities and who are members of, or represented by, Local 660.

At 10 p.m. on July 5, 1976, approximately 75 percent of these workers went out on strike after negotiations between the District and Local 660 for a new wage and benefit agreement had reached an impasse. The strike continued until July 16, at which time the employees voted to accept an offer made by the District prior to the strike, i.e., July 1, 1976, and to return to work the following day. In the interim, the District had filed the instant action for injunctive relief and damages on July 6, 1976.

Much has been written on the subject of labor relations in the public sector, including the advisability of granting public employees full collective bargaining rights and, more particularly, the right to strike. (See, e.g., Hanslowe and Acierno, The Law and Theory of Strikes By Government Employees (1982) 67 Cornell L.Rev. 1055; Comment, Public Employee Legislation: An Emerging Paradox, Impact, and Opportunity (1976) 13 San Diego L.Rev. 931; Comment, California Assembly Advisory Council's Recommendations on Impasse Resolution Procedures and Public Employee Strikes (1974) 11 San Diego L.Rev. 473; Comment, The Collective Bargaining Process at the Municipal Level Lingers in Its Chrysalis Stage (1974) 14 Santa Clara Law. 397; Grodin, Public Employee Bargaining in California: The Meyers-Milias-Brown Act in the Courts (1972) 23 Hastings L.J. 719; Shaw and Clark, The Practical Differences Between Public and Private Sector Collective Bargaining (1972) 19 U.C.L.A.L.Rev. 867; Lev, Strikes by Government Employees: Problems and Solutions (1971) 57 Amer.Bar Assoc.J. 771; Witt, The Public Sector Strike: Dilemma of the Seventies (1971) 8 Cal.Western L.Rev. 102; Bernstein, Alternatives to the Strike in Public Labor Relations (1971) 85 Harv.L.Rev. 459; Burton and Krider, The Role and Consequences of Strikes by Public Employees (1970) 79 Yale L.J. 418; Wellington and Winter, More on Strikes by Public Employees (1970) 79 Yale L.J. 441; Kheel, Strikes and Public Employment (1969) 67 Mich.L.Rev. 931; Anderson, Strikes and Impasse Resolution in Public Employment (1969) 67 Mich.L.Rev. 943; Wellington and Winter, The Limits of Collective Bargaining in Public Employment (1969) 78 Yale L.J. 1107; Thorne, The Government Employee and Organized Labor (1962) 2 Santa Clara Law. 147; Note, Labor Relations in the Public Sector (1961) 75 Harv.L.Rev. 391; Annot., Labor Law: Right of Public Employees to Strike or Engage in Work Stoppage (1971) 37 A.L.R.3d 1147.)

The California Assembly Advisory Council on Public Employee Relations in its final report of March 15, 1973, concluded that, "[s]ubject only to [certain specified] restrictions and limitations ... public employees should have the right to strike" (p. 24) and proposed a statute to carry out these goals (Appendix A). Nevertheless, the Legislature "has steadfastly refrained from providing clearcut guidance" in this area. (El Rancho Unified School Dist. v. National Education Assn. (1983) 33 Cal.3d 946, 964, 192 Cal.Rptr. 123, 663 P.2d 893 (conc. opn. of Grodin, J.).)

No recent decision of our Supreme Court has squarely passed upon the legality of strikes by public employees, although in Los Angeles Met. Transit Authority v. Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen (1960) 54 Cal.2d 684, 8 Cal.Rptr. 1, 355 P.2d 905, wherein the Los Angeles Metropolitan Transit Authority Act was held to authorize strikes by employees of that agency, the court stated: "In the absence of legislative authorization public employees in general do not have the right to strike ...." (Id., p. 687, 8 Cal.Rptr. 1, 355 P.2d 905.) With complete uniformity the Courts of Appeal have treated this declaration as establishing a general rule--and have honored it. (See, e.g., Stationary Engineers v. San Juan Suburban Water Dist. (1979) 90 Cal.App.3d 796, 801, 153 Cal.Rptr. 666; Pasadena Unified Sch. Dist. v. Pasadena Federation of Teachers (1977) 72 Cal.App.3d 100, 105-107, 140 Cal.Rptr. 41, hg. den.; Los Angeles Unified School Dist. v. United Teachers (1972) 24 Cal.App.3d 142, 145-146, 100 Cal.Rptr. 806, hg. den.; Trustees of Cal. State Colleges v. Local 1352, S.F. State etc. Teachers (1970) 13 Cal.App.3d 863, 867, 92 Cal.Rptr. 134, hg. den.; City of San Diego v. American Federation of State etc. Employees (1970) 8 Cal.App.3d 308, 310, 87 Cal.Rptr. 258, hg. den.; Almond v. County of Sacramento (1969) 276 Cal.App.2d 32, 35-36, 80 Cal.Rptr. 518, hg. den.; Pranger v. Break (1960) 186 Cal.App.2d 551, 556, 9 Cal.Rptr. 293, hg. den.; see also, the earlier appellate decision in Newmarker v. Regents of Univ. of Cal. (1958) 160 Cal.App.2d 640, 646, 325 P.2d 558; City of L.A. v. Los Angeles etc. Council (1949) 94 Cal.App.2d 36, 41, 210 P.2d 305, hg. den.) Although hearings have been granted in several most recent appellate court decisions, our highest court to date has declined to reach the question of the continuing validity of its earlier pronouncement. (International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers v. City of Gridley (1983) 34 Cal.3d 191, 193 Cal.Rptr. 518, 666 P.2d 960; El Rancho Unified School Dist. v. National Education Assn., supra, 33 Cal.3d 946, 192 Cal.Rptr. 123, 663 P.2d 893; San Diego Teachers Assn. v. Superior Court (1979) 24 Cal.3d 1, 154 Cal.Rptr. 893, 593 P.2d 838; City and County of San Francisco v. Cooper (1975) 13 Cal.3d 898, 120 Cal.Rptr. 707, 534 P.2d 403.)

Local 660 argues that prohibiting public employees from striking and subjecting those who engage in such activities to actions for damages is contrary to public policy and inconsistent with "modern society" and that it results in a deprivation of basic constitutional rights. However, it has heretofore been held that the "conduct of an unlawful strike is itself a tort for which damages may be recovered" (Pasadena Unified Sch. Dist. v. Pasadena Federation of Teachers, supra, 72 Cal.App.3d 100, 112, 140 Cal.Rptr. 41; Annot., Liability of Labor Union or Its Membership for Torts Committed by Officers, Members, Pickets, or Others, in Connection with Lawful Primary Labor Activities (1971) 36 A.L.R.3d 405; and Annot., Damage Liability of State or Local Public Employees' Union or Union Officials for Unlawful Work Stoppage (1978) 84 A.L.R.3d 336), and that the enforcement of the prohibition against such strikes is not violative of the constitutional rights of free speech and association or the guarantee of equal protection of the law. 2 (Pasadena Unified Sch. Dist. v. Pasadena Federation of Teachers, supra, 72 Cal.App.3d 100, 104-110, 140 Cal.Rptr. 41; Los Angeles Unified School Dist. v. United Teachers, supra, 24 Cal.App.3d 142, 144-146, 100 Cal.Rptr. 806; City of San Diego v. American Federation of State etc. Employees, supra, 8 Cal.App.3d 308, 313, 87 Cal.Rptr. 258.)

Insofar as Local 660 asserts the District did not engage in fair bargaining, thereby violating the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act and entitling its employees to "engage in economic action in order to obtain a reasonable settlement," it has been noted that the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act "falls far short of constituting a legislative authorization of a right to strike as a means of settling public employer-employee differences" (Almond v. County of Sacramento, supra, 276 Cal.App.2d 32, 38, 80 Cal.Rptr. 518), and, further, the prohibition against public employee strikes has been deemed to apply whether an employer "violates the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act or not. [Citations.]" (Stationary Engineers v. San Juan Suburban Water Dist. (1979) 90 Cal.App.3d 796, 801, 153 Cal.Rptr. 666.)

While we recognize that often "coming events cast their shadows before" and certain expressions in decisions such as International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers v. City of Gridley, supra, 34 Cal.3d 191, 199, fn. 7, 193 Cal.Rptr. 518, 666 P.2d 960; El Rancho Unified School Dist. v. National Education Assn., supra, 33 Cal.3d 946, 957-958, 962-964, 192 Cal.Rptr. 123, 663 P.2d 893; San Diego Teachers Assn. v....

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT