PERB: OPERATION, JURISDICTION, AUTHORITY; SCOPE OF PERB JURISDICTION – Concurrent or Conflicting Jurisdiction with Other Agencies or Courts; Interpretation or Enforcement of Other Statutes

Single Topic for Decision 2966E

View all topics for Decision 2966E

Full Decision Text (click on the link to view): Full Text

The Board summarized the interplay between superior court jurisdiction and PERB jurisdiction. Normally, PERB has exclusive initial jurisdiction whenever the conduct at issue is arguably prohibited or arguably protected under a PERB-enforced labor relations statute, even if a party chooses to challenge such conduct in court by alleging claims that do not sound in any labor relations statute. (Palomar Health v. National Nurses United (2023) 97 Cal.App.5th 1189, 1200-1204 (Palomar); see also City & County of San Francisco v. International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 39 (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 938, 945 [courts consider the underlying conduct on which the suit is based rather than the manner in which the plaintiff has chosen to plead its case].) For instance, when an employer sues a union for leafletting, picketing, or strike activity, or an employee sues a union for its handling of a grievance or bargaining conduct, the superior court must dismiss the matter in favor of PERB’s exclusive jurisdiction, and a party that disagrees with PERB’s conclusions has only one recourse: it must exhaust PERB’s jurisdiction at every stage and then appeal PERB’s final decision as allowed under the applicable labor relations statute. (City of San Jose v. Operating Engineers Local Union No. 3 (2010) 49 Cal.4th 597, 609 & 611 [exhaustion requires a “full presentation” at “all prescribed stages” of the administrative process]; Palomar, supra, 97 Cal.App.5th at pp. 1210-1212 [dismissing trespass action based on PERB’s exclusive jurisdiction, because conduct at issue was arguably prohibited and arguably protected under labor relations statute]; Curcio v. Fontana Teachers Assn., CTA/NEA (2021) 68 Cal.App.5th 924, 932-933 (Curcio) [exhausting PERB’s jurisdiction “does not mean the party may then file a lawsuit in the superior court,” as PERB jurisdiction “divests the superior courts of jurisdiction”; courts retain only limited jurisdiction to entertain appeals of PERB decisions].) Thus, the sole import of the word “initial,” as used in the phrase “exclusive initial jurisdiction,” is to reinforce that final PERB decisions regarding unfair practice charges are subject to review. (Curcio, supra, 68 Cal.App.5th at p. 932.) In most cases, a party may obtain such review by filing an extraordinary writ in the court of appeal, but for a PERB decision not to issue a complaint, there is only a much more limited right to file a writ in superior court. (Ibid.) (pp. 5-6.)