Regents of University of California v. Public Employment Relations Bd.
Decision Date | 09 June 1986 |
Citation | 227 Cal.Rptr. 57,182 Cal.App.3d 71 |
Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Parties | , 124 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 3019, 32 Ed. Law Rep. 1267 The REGENTS OF the UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, Plaintiff, v. PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent, William H. WILSON and American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, Local 371, Real Parties in Interest. AO29706. |
Donald L. Reidhaar, James N. Odle, Susan M. Thomas, University of California Berkeley, for Regents of University of California.
Dennis M. Sullivan, Gen. Counsel, Jeffrey Sloan, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Public Employment Relations Bd., Sacramento, Public Employment Relations Bd., Andrea L. Biren, San Francisco, for PERB.
Andrew Thomas Sinclair, Oakland, for Real Party in Interest Wilson.
Charles D. Hawley, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Law Dept., United States Postal Service, Washington, D.C., for amicus curiae: Regents of University of California.
For the second time we have granted a writ of review to consider the propriety of an order issued by the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) compelling the employer, the University of California (University,) to grant an employee organization access to the University's internal mail service.
In Regents of University of California v. Public Employment Relations Board (1983) 139 Cal.App.3d 1037, 189 Cal.Rptr. 298, we set forth the salient facts in this dispute at pages 1039 and 1040 and reiterate them here for convenience:
Based on a solicited advisory opinion from the U.S.P.S., the University took the position that carriage by the University in its internal mail distribution system of the letters of a union seeking to represent the University's custodial employees, without payment of postage, is prohibited by the Private Express Statutes. (18 U.S.C., §§ 1693-1699, 1724; 39 U.S.C., §§ 601-606.) 2
After an appropriate hearing and administrative appeal the PERB ordered the University to allow free access to the intercampus mail system. Thereafter, we granted University's petition for a writ of review. Upon considering the University's challenge to the PERB order, we concluded that certain preliminary factual issues needed to be determined before a ruling on the order could be made. Accordingly, we remanded the matter for a determination whether the University's regulations denying union access to the internal mail system were reasonable in light of all the surrounding circumstances, including federal postal requirements. In reaching its determination, we suggested that the PERB consider (1) the University's distribution of literature through the internal mail system to disseminate an employee newsletter expressing management's views on labor-management issues; (2) the University's distribution of literature through the internal mail system soliciting charitable contributions deemed official business under the auspices of the chancellor; (3) the union's access to other means of communicating with custodial employees; and (4) the burden which would be placed on the University's internal mail system if access were provided. Most importantly, we stated that the PERB was free to consult federal law in order to determine whether the state statute may be enforced without offending federal postal regulations. (Regents of University of California v. Public Employment Relations Bd., supra, 139 Cal.App.3d at p. 1042 and fn. 5, 189 Cal.Rptr. 298.)
After a subsequent evidentiary hearing and administrative appeal, the PERB found that: (1) articles and newsletters disseminated to employees by the University via the University mail system do include management positions on issues pertinent to employer-employee relations; (2) on at least three occasions the University has allowed use of the internal mail system by non-employee organizations; (3) the union is not required to use an alternative means of communicating with employees where, as here, the University has made no showing that permitting employee organizations to have access to the internal mail system will disrupt the functioning of the University (see Richmond Unified School District (1979) 3 PERC, § 10105) and (4) there was no convincing evidence that permitting an employee organization to have access to the internal mail system would create any additional financial burden on the University. Regarding the crucial issue concerning a potential conflict with U.S. postal regulations, the PERB determined that the University's delivery of union communications falls within two "exceptions" and one "suspension" established by 18 United States Code section 1694 3 and 1696 4 and 39 Code of Federal Regulations section 320.4. 5 Accordingly the PERB again found that the University's regulation prohibiting employee organization access to its internal mail system is unreasonable within the meaning of Government Code section 3568 and ordered that the University grant the union access to the University's internal mail service.
Preliminarily, we note that under Government Code section 3564, subdivision (c) the "findings of the board with respect to questions of fact, including ultimate facts, if supported by substantial evidence on the record considered as a whole, are conclusive." In addition, the rule is that "[u]nder established principles, PERB's construction is to be regarded with deference by a court performing the judicial functions of statutory construction, and will generally be followed unless it is clearly erroneous." (San Mateo City School Dist. v. Public Employment Relations Bd. (1983) 33 Cal.3d 850, 856, 191 Cal.Rptr. 800, 663 P.2d 523; Regents of the University of California v. Public Employment Relations Bd. (1986) 177 Cal.App.3d 648, 653, 223 Cal.Rptr. 127.)
We need not address each of the three regulations upon which the PERB based its order. For the reasons stated below we are satisfied that the union's use of the University's internal mail system falls within the so-called "letters-of-the-carrier" exception as set forth in 18 United States Code section 1694 and 39 Code of Federal Regulations section 310.3, subdivision (b), and that no conflict exists between the HEERA and federal postal regulations.
As the PERB recognized, Article I, section 8, clause 7 of the United States Constitution authorizes Congress to establish "post offices and post roads." This provision of the Constitution has traditionally been construed as granting the federal government a monopoly over the delivery of mail. (Associated Third Class Mail Users v. U.S. Postal Serv. (D.C.Cir.1979) 600 F.2d 824; National Ass'n of Letter Car. v. Independent Postal Sys. (10th Cir.1972) 470 F.2d 265; Ex Parte Jackson (1877) 6 Otto 727, 96 U.S. 727, 24 L.Ed. 877.) The Private Express Statutes (39 U.S.C. §§ 601-606; 18 U.S.C. §§ 1693-1699, 1724) generally prohibit the delivery of letters along post routes by anyone other than the United States Postal Service, but establish certain statutory exceptions to the Postal Services' monopoly over the delivery of letters. Pursuant to these statutes, the United States Postal Service has developed rules permitting private carriage of letters by individuals and entities. (39 C.F.R. §§ 310, 320.)
The letters-of-the-carrier exception to the general prohibition regarding...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Regents of University of California v. Public Employment Relations Board
...the issue of deference to the Postal Service's regulations construing the exceptions need not be addressed. Pp. 601—602. 182 Cal.App.3d 71, 227 Cal.Rptr. 57, O'CONNOR, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which REHNQUIST, C.J., and BRENNAN, BLACKMUN, and SCALIA, JJ., joined. WHITE, J.......
-
Regents of University of California v. Public Employment Relations Bd.
...union mail came within the "letters of the carrier" exception and thus there was "no conflict with federal regulations." (182 Cal.App.3d at p. 80, 227 Cal.Rptr. 57.) The University's petition for review by the California Supreme Court was denied. (182 Cal.App.3d at p. 81, 227 Cal.Rptr. The ......
-
Missouri Pacific R. Co. v. Railroad Com'n of Texas
...v. Public Employment Relations Board, 139 Cal.App.3d 1037, 1042, 189 Cal.Rptr. 298, 301 (1983), appeal after remand 182 Cal.App.3d 71, 227 Cal.Rptr. 57 (1986), review denied 1986 (citing Udall v. Tallman, 380 U.S. 1, 85 S.Ct. 792, 13 L.Ed.2d 616 (B) Defendants' Evidence Defendants offered t......
-
Regents of the University of California v. Public Employment Relations Bd. (Wilson), A029706
...Real Parties in Interest. No. A029706. Court of Appeal, First District, Division 1, California. July 1, 1988. Prior report: 182 Cal.App.3d 71, 227 Cal.Rptr. 57. BY THE Pursuant to the United States Supreme Court decision in Regents of the University of California v. Public Employment Relati......