 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
American Federation of State2/14/2002
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING; petition for writ of mandate. Hugh C. Gardener, III, Judge. Petition granted.
INTRODUCTION
This petition is from a judgment of the superior court after a hearing on appeal from a small claims judgment. It challenges the jurisdiction of the superior court over a state employee's claims against her union and the union's business manager, arising out of their representation of the employee in grievance proceedings. We find that the small claims court was without jurisdiction. Accordingly, we grant the petition.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Real party in interest Fara Morshedian (Morshedian) is a psychologist and represented employee of the State of California, Department of the Youth Authority (the Youth Authority). Petitioners are the American Federation of State, County, & Municipal Employees (AFSCME or the union), real party's bargaining agent under the California Public Employer-Employees Act (SEERA) (Gov. Code § 3512 et seq.), and AFSCME's business agent, Lenny Potash.
Morshedian, a psychologist with the Youth Authority, submitted a $165 claim to the Youth Authority for reimbursement for an educational seminar. When the Youth Authority denied her claim for reimbursement, Morshedian filed a grievance, in which she was represented by petitioners. The Youth Authority denied the grievance on the merits, notwithstanding some error or confusion by either AFSCME or Morshedian concerning seeking and obtaining a response from the ascending levels of review required under the grievance process. On January 22, 2000 AFSCME's Local Arbitration Committee informed Morshedian that it had decided not to recommend arbitration of her grievance, citing procedural problems which could prevent reaching the substance of the grievance.
On January 17, 2001, Morshedian filed a small claims action against petitioners, claiming $1,290, excluding costs. Morshedian's complaint alleged that on January 22, 2000, petitioners': " egligence, deprived me of due process, confusing grievance process." A hearing was held in small claims court on March 1, 2001, in which Potash was dismissed as a defendant, but judgment was entered in favor of Morshedian and against AFSCME in the amount of $1,201 principal and $221.50 costs. A trial de novo was held on August 3, 2001, which resulted in a judgment against both AFSCME and Potash, in the amount of $165, plus costs of $386.50.
At each proceeding AFSCME and Potash claimed that the small claims court was without jurisdiction.
DISCUSSION
Although a judgment of the superior court after a hearing on appeal from a small claims judgment is unappealable (Code of Civil Procedure, § 116.780, subd. (a)), appellate courts have jurisdiction to entertain petitions for extraordinary review in appropriate instances involving significant issues of small claims law or procedure (Houghtaling v. Superior Court (1993) 17 Cal.App.4th 1128, 1131). This case presents such an issue, because Morshedian's small claim action against petitioners concerned petitioners' representation of her in a grievance proceeding, a matter over which the court did not have jurisdiction.
A union does not owe a duty of due care to its members. (Hussey v. Operating Engineers Local Union No. 3 (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 1213, 1219.) Inste
Page 1 2 3 California Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|