Source: https://law.justia.com/cases/california/supreme-court/3d/27/736.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-18 20:22:06+00:00

Document:
Justia › US Law › Case Law › California Case Law › Cal. 3d › Volume 27 › Hitchcock Transportation Co. v. Industrial Welfare Com.
Hitchcock Transportation Co. v. Industrial Welfare Com.
HITCHCOCK TRANSPORTATION COMPANY et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. INDUSTRIAL WELFARE COMMISSION et al., Defendants and Appellants; UNITED AIR LINES, INC., et al., Interveners and Appellants.
Jan L. Kahn, Kahn & Soares, Richard W. Smith, Robert F. Millman, Lloyd W. Aubry, Littler, Mendelson, Fastiff & Tichy, Richard M. Mosk, Mitchell, Silberberg & Knupp, Jean C. Gaskill, James L. [27 Cal. 3d 738] Meeder and Brobeck, Phleger & Harrison for Plaintiffs and Appellants and for Interveners and Appellants.
George Deukmejian, Attorney General, John M. Morrison and Carol Hunter, Deputy Attorneys General, for Defendants and Appellants.
Van Bourg, Allen, Weinberg & Roger, Victor Van Bourg, Michael B. Roger and Stefanie Arthur as Amici Curiae on behalf of Defendants and Appellants.
While this case was pending on appeal, we rendered our decision in California Hotel & Motel Assn. v. Industrial Welfare Com. (1979) 25 Cal. 3d 200 [157 Cal. Rptr. 840, 599 P.2d 31]. We concluded that the IWC had misinterpreted Labor Code section 1177's requirement relating to the preparation of a statement as to the basis of its orders when it promulgated order 5-76, a separate 1976 wage order covering the public housekeeping industry.
 As the IWC acknowledges, orders 9-76 and 10-76, like order 5-76 before us in California Hotel & Motel Assn., contain no explicit provision designated as a statement as to basis. The "To Whom It May [27 Cal. 3d 739] Concern" paragraph of orders 9-76 and 10-76 are in all relevant respects identical to the similarly entitled paragraph in order 5-76. (See 25 Cal.3d at pp. 209-210 & fn. 19.) In light of the California Hotel & Motel Assn. decision, the trial court judgment in this case -- invalidating orders 9-76 and 10-76 -- must be affirmed since the statements as to basis are inadequate. In view of this conclusion, we need not address the remainder of the trial court's conclusions, although we do note that many of those conclusions are contrary to the determinations we have reached this day in Industrial Welfare Com. v. Superior Court, ante, page 690 [166 Cal. Rptr. 331, 613 P.2d 579].
There are several significant distinctions between California Hotel & Motel Assn. and this case, however, that lead us to conclude that a remand would not be appropriate at this time. First, unlike the situation in California Hotel & Motel Assn., the 1976 orders at issue here have already been superseded by new wage orders 9-80 and 10-80. Thus, even if the commission were to adopt an adequate statement as to basis supported by the 1976 administrative record, the 1976 orders would have no prospective effect.
For all of the foregoing reasons, we conclude that the trial court judgments should simply be affirmed.
The judgments are affirmed. Each party shall bear its own costs on appeal.
Clark, J., Richardson, J., Manuel, J., Taylor, J., and Racanelli, J., concurred.
I dissent. Four members of this court did not participate in California Hotel & Motel Assn. v. Industrial Welfare Com. (1979) 25 Cal. 3d 200 [157 Cal. Rptr. 840, 599 P.2d 31]. Yet apparently they conclude either that the case binds them or that it was correctly decided.
Dissenting in that case, I argued inter alia that the alleged error was not prejudicial to the complaining employers. (25 Cal.3d at p. 217.) That also is true here, I believe. The majority in California Hotel & Motel held, however, that the employees should not be prejudiced. (See id., at p. 216.) In this case, unfortunately, the employees are seriously prejudiced by the judicially pronounced rule that in my view still is unsupportable.
FN 1. The employers filed a protective cross-appeal, contesting the trial court's rulings in favor of the IWC on a number of issues. In light of our conclusion that the judgments invalidating the wage orders should be affirmed, we need not address the issues raised by the employers' cross-appeal.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.