Opinion ID: 2618880
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Necessity of Proceeding Under The Public Employment Relations Act To Obtain The Requested Information.

Text: The University argues that the superior court erred in refusing to dismiss the APEA's complaint for lack of jurisdiction contending that the Alaska Labor Relations Agency has primary authority to resolve disputes such as the one presented by the instant case. [18] The superior court rejected the University's argument on the ground that the doctrine applied only when at least some part of the case [fell] within the exclusive jurisdiction of [the] agency in question, citing Greater Anchorage Area Borough v. City of Anchorage, 504 P.2d 1027, 1033 (Alaska 1972), where we held that [i]n order for such a judicial reference to be valid, at least some part of the case must fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the administrative agency. The jurisdiction of the agency, in turn, depends upon the administrative authority conferred upon it by the relevant statutes. (Footnotes omitted.) The superior court noted that the University itself had conceded that PERA neither granted nor denied exclusive jurisdiction over disputes such as the case at bar to the LRA. Since the APEA was not statutorily required to proceed before the LRA, the superior court concluded that the doctrine of primary jurisdiction was inapplicable. We are not persuaded that the superior court's ruling was erroneous and thus affirm the court's denial of the motion to dismiss. [19] AFFIRMED.