PERB Has Exclusive Jurisdiction Over MMBA DFR Claims
October 13, 2011 by Beeson Tayer & Bodine
In a case handled by Andrew Baker of Beeson, Tayer & Bodine, a court of appeal in March ruled that DFR claims brought by county and municipal employees are subject to the exclusive initial jurisdiction of the Public Employment Relations Board (“PERB”).
In Paulsen v. Teamsters Local No. 856, county employees filed in state court a cause of action for breach of the duty of fair representation, common law breach of fiduciary duty, and fraudulent concealment. Although no reported decision had ever addressed the issued, the trial court sustained the Union’s objection to all three causes of action due to a lack of subject matter jurisdiction, concluding the claims all amounted to DFR claims subject to PERB’s exclusive jurisdiction.
The court of appeal agreed that PERB treats a “union’s violation of its duty of fair representation as an unfair practice under the MMBA” and that “PERB has exclusive initial jurisdiction over MMBA unfair practice charges.” The court of appeal found that even though MMBA does not expressly impose a duty of fair representation on a union, PERB has “nevertheless concluded that a violation of that duty is an unfair labor practice for purposes of the MMBA” which can also be inferred from certain regulations interpreting the MMBA. The court of appeal further concluded that “at least as to bargaining over the terms and conditions of employment, an employee organization acts as the employees’ exclusive representative and has a duty of fair representation under the MMBA.”
The court of appeal additionally found no merit to Officers’ argument that claims for unpaid wages are not considered unfair labor charges within the exclusive jurisdiction of PERB because they are not “seeking statutorily due wages from their employer,” but rather “compensation for [Union’s] actions in breaching their duty of fair representation.” Finally, the court of appeal did not agree with Officers’ contention that seeking a remedy from PERB would be futile because they filed a class action lawsuit.
The appellate court held that nothing in the MMBA suggests that a party can avoid the exclusive jurisdiction of PERB merely by filing a class action lawsuit. This decision is an important one for unions that represent public employees covered by the Meyers- Milias-Brown Act. Such employees who seek to bring a DFR claim against their union are not free to go straight to court, where the union can quickly incur significant legal costs defending against meritless claims; instead they must bring their claims with PERB which conducts an initial investigation to determine whether the claim has merit.
The material on this website is provided by Beeson, Tayer & Bodine for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Readers should consult with their own legal counsel before acting on any of the information presented. Some of the articles are updated periodically, and are marked with the date of the last update. Again, readers should consult with their own legal counsel for the most current information and to obtain professional advice before acting on any of the information presented.
