Case Name:    AFSCME Local 101 v. Santa Clara Valley Water District

Case No.:        1-14-CV-259682

Date:               April 22, 2014

Time:              9:00 a.m.

Dept:               8

Petitioner American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees, Local 101, AFL-CIO (“the Union”) brings a petition and motion against the “indispensable party” California Public Employee Retirement System (“CalPERS”) and respondent Santa Clara Valley Water District (“the District”) for an order (1) confirming the arbitration award issued on December 17, 2013 (“Award”), (2) entering judgment in conformity with the Award, (3) compelling the District to abide by the Award, (4) compelling “CalPERS to provide for participation of employees affected by the Award in the plan of benefits,” and (5) awarding costs to the Union.  (See Code of Civ. Proc. [“CCP”], § 1285.)

The District brings a cross-petition and motion for an order (1) granting the cross-petititon and vacate the Award, (2) awarding costs to the District, (3) awarding attorney’s fees to the District, and (4) granting the District all other relief that the Court considers proper.

I.          Requests for Judicial Notice

CalPERS’s request for judicial notice is DENIED.  (See Stepan v. Garcia (1974) 43 Cal.App.3d 497, 500; see also People ex rel. Lockyer v. Shamrock Foods Co. (2000) 24 Cal.4th 415, 422, fn. 2 [only relevant matters are subject to judicial notice].)  The unpublished judgment—which as the Union notes is also pending appeal—from another lawsuit has no precedential effect and is not relevant to any matter before this Court.

The Union’s request for judicial notice of the California state legislature’s legislative history materials for Statutes 1979, Chapter 1200 is GRANTED.  (See Evid. Code, § 452, subd. (c) [a court may take judicial notice of official acts of the state legislature].)

II.        The Union’s Petition to Confirm the Award

The Union’s petition and motion against the District and CalPERS is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.

To the extent the Union’s petition and motion seek to enforce the Award against CalPERS, the petition and motion are DENIED.  (CCP, § 1287.2 [“The court shall dismiss the proceeding under this chapter as to any person named as a respondent if the court determines that such person was not bound by the arbitration award and was not a party to the arbitration.”].)  The Award does not include any term applicable to CalPERS, and CalPERS was not a party to the arbitration.  Accordingly, the petition is DISMISSED as to CalPERS only.

The underlying dispute in this case arises from a collective bargaining agreement and its corresponding memorandum of understanding (“MOU”).  Ultimately, the arbitrator “concluded that the District violated the MOU by its unilateral actions regarding pension benefits, and, in so doing, also violated public sector laws in California.”  (Award, at pp. 11-12.)  The arbitrator then issued the following award: “(1) The Union’s grievance is sustained.  (2) The District will cease and desist from implementation of the PERPA as to new hires as of January 1, 2013, until the parties have had an opportunity to meet and confer in good faith, subject to any limits under law.  Unless the parties negotiate a different understanding, employees hired b y the District after January 1, 2013, are to be treated as if they are employees subject to Article 6.1.B; that is, as new hires after January 1, 2012.  (3)  New hires by the District after January 1, 2013 have been adversely affected by being improperly classified for pension benefits are to be made whole for any loss of pay or other benefits.  (4)  Pursuant to the stipulation of the parties, the arbitrator will retain jurisdiction for 120 calendar days from the date of this Award to resolve any dispute over implementation of the remedy.”  (Award, at pp. 16-17.)

“[T]he deference due an arbitrator’s decision on the merits of the controversy requires a court to refrain from substituting its judgment for the arbitrator’s in determining the contractual scope of those powers.”  (Kelly Sutherlin McLeod Architecture, Inc. v. Schneickert (2011) 194 Cal.App.4th 519, 529.)  The grounds for judicial review of an arbitration award are extremely limited.  (Moncharsh v. Heily & Blase (1992) 3 Cal.4th 1.)  A court cannot review the merits of the controversy, the arbitrator’s reasoning, or the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the award.  (Id., at p. 11.)  Even “an error of law apparent on the face of the award that causes substantial injustice does not provide grounds for judicial review.”  (Id., at p. 33.)

The District contends that the Award should be vacated on the ground that the arbitrator exceeded his powers.  (See CCP, §1286.2, subd. (a)(4) [providing that an arbitration award may be vacated if “[t]he arbitrators exceeded their powers and the award cannot be corrected without affecting the merits of the decision upon the controversy submitted”].)  However, it does not provide any statutory right or legislative expression of public policy that is affected by the Award.  The Award simply requires the District to negotiate with the Union with respect to the District’s effort to change the pension benefits available to new employees, and unless the parties agree otherwise, the parties are to perform pursuant to MOU 2012-2014.

Therefore, to the extent the Union’s petition and motion seek to enforce the Award against the District, the petition and motion are GRANTED.

The Award is accordingly CONFIRMED.

To the extent the Union’s petition seeks an order compelling the District to abide by the Award, the petition and motion are DENIED, without prejudice.  While the Court has the power to confirm that an award was made and the “judgment so entered has the same force and effect as, and is subject to all the provisions of law relating to, a judgment in a civil action of the same jurisdictional classification,” there is no legal basis for the Court to expressly order the District to abide by terms of the Award.  (CCP, §§ 1286 & 1287.4.)  Rather, if the District fails to comply with the Award, the Union may seek to have it enforced “like any other judgment.”  (See CCP, § 1287.4.)

To the extent the Union’s petition seeks an award of costs, the petition and motion are DENIED.  There is no legal basis for the Court to award costs for enforcing an arbitration award.

III.       The District’s Cross-Petition to Vacate the Award

In light of the foregoing, the District’s cross-petition to vacate the Award is DENIED.

The District’s request for costs and fees is also DENIED.