Opinion ID: 2517919
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: PERB Jurisdiction and Public Employee Strikes

Text: In 1961, the Legislature enacted the George Brown Act (Stats. 1961, ch. 1964, § 1, pp. 4141-4143, adding Gov. Code, § 3500 et seq.), which granted public employees in California the right to organize and have their representatives meet and confer with their employers over wages and working conditions (Gov. Code, former § 3505). That right was expanded in 1968, when the Legislature enacted the MMBA (Gov. Code, §§ 3500-3510) authorizing public entities and labor representatives not only to confer but also to reach binding agreements on wages, hours, and working conditions. (Gov. Code, § 3505; Coachella Valley Mosquito & Vector Control Dist. v. California Public Employment Relations Bd. (2005) 35 Cal.4th 1072, 1083 [29 Cal.Rptr.3d 234, 112 P.3d 623] ( Coachella Valley ).) At that time, PERB had not yet been created. The history of PERB begins in 1975, when the Legislature enacted the Educational Employment Relations Act (EERA) (Gov. Code, §§ 3540-3549.3). That law established the Educational Employment Relations Board (EERB), which in 1977 was renamed the Public Employment Relations Board. ( Coachella Valley, supra, 35 Cal.4th at p. 1085.) As an administrative agency, PERB was to adjudicate unfair labor practice charges under the EERA, and its jurisdiction was set forth in Government Code section 3541.5. That statute provided and still provides, in part: The initial determination as to whether the charges of unfair practices are justified, and, if so, what remedy is necessary to effectuate the purposes of this chapter, shall be a matter within the exclusive jurisdiction of the board. (Italics added.) We discussed Government Code section 3541.5 first in San Diego Teachers Assn. v. Superior Court (1979) 24 Cal.3d 1 [154 Cal.Rptr. 893, 593 P.2d 838] ( San Diego Teachers ) and later in El Rancho Unified School Dist. v. National Education Assn. (1983) 33 Cal.3d 946 [192 Cal.Rptr. 123, 663 P.2d 893] ( El Rancho ). In each case, we held that PERB had exclusive initial jurisdiction over public employee strikes, as explained below. In San Diego Teachers, supra, 24 Cal.3d 1, unfair labor practice charges were pending before PERB when a superior court enjoined a teacher's association from striking and further held the association and its president in contempt for violating the injunction. We annulled the contempt orders on the ground that PERB had exclusive initial jurisdiction to determine whether the strike was an unfair practice . . . . ( Id. at p. 14.) (1) In El Rancho, supra, 33 Cal.3d 946, this court held that the statutory grant to PERB of exclusive initial jurisdiction over unfair labor practice charges under the EERA divested the superior courts of jurisdiction over a school district's complaint for damages arising from a teachers' strike. ( El Rancho, at p. 961.) We noted that some four years earlier this court in San Diego Teachers, supra, 24 Cal.3d at page 12, had embraced the preemption doctrine developed by the federal courts under the National Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C. § 151 et seq. [NLRA]), and that the principles defining the preemptive reach of the NLRA are generally applicable in determining the scope of PERB's preemptive jurisdiction under EERA. ( El Rancho, supra, 33 Cal.3d at p. 953.) Accordingly, citing San Diego Unions v. Garmon (1959) 359 U.S. 236, 244-245 [3 L.Ed.2d 775, 79 S.Ct. 773], we applied to PERB the same rule of jurisdiction that the United States Supreme Court had adopted with respect to the National Labor Relations Board. Under that rule, the administrative agency is held to have exclusive jurisdiction over activities arguably protected or prohibited by the governing labor law statutes. ( El Rancho, supra, at p. 953.) (2) Neither San Diego Teachers, supra, 24 Cal.3d 1, nor El Rancho, supra, 33 Cal.3d 946, addressed whether public employees have a legal right to strike. And both the EERA and the MMBA are silent on this subject. But in 1985 we did take up that question in County Sanitation Dist. No. 2 v. Los Angeles County Employees' Assn. (1985) 38 Cal.3d 564 [214 Cal.Rptr. 424, 699 P.2d 835] ( County Sanitation ). There we held: [S]trikes by public employees are not unlawful at common law unless or until it is clearly demonstrated that such a strike creates a substantial and imminent threat to the health or safety of the public. This standard allows exceptions in certain essential areas of public employment (e.g., the prohibition against firefighters and law enforcement personnel) and also requires the courts to determine on a case-by-case basis whether the public interest overrides the basic right to strike. ( Id. at p. 586.) Thus, County Sanitation vested the courts with jurisdiction to decide whether to allow or to prohibit a particular public employee strike. In 2000, the Legislature extended PERB's jurisdiction to cover matters arising under the MMBAthis was done through enactment of Government Code section 3509, which became effective July 1, 2001. (Stats. 2000, ch. 901, § 8.) Subdivision (b) of that statute provides in relevant part: A complaint alleging any violation of [the MMBA] . . . shall be processed as an unfair practice charge by [PERB]. The initial determination as to whether the charge of unfair practice is justified and, if so, the appropriate remedy necessary to effectuate the purposes of this chapter, shall be a matter within the exclusive jurisdiction of [PERB]. (Italics added.) This enactment removed from the courts their initial jurisdiction over MMBA unfair practice charges ( Coachella Valley, supra, 35 Cal.4th at p. 1089) and vested such jurisdiction in PERB ( id. at p. 1077). Does this enactment also vest PERB with exclusive initial jurisdiction over public employee strikes that may involve claims of unfair labor practices under the MMBA? Our answer is yes, as explained below.