DPA

State Personnel Bd. v. DPA

Good Law
1 Cal. Rptr. 3d 278·109 Cal. App. 4th 1574
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJuly 22, 2003C034943, C040263, C032633California14,022 words

Opinion

Opinion

BLEASE, Acting P.J.

The California Constitution requires that the California State Personnel Board (SPB) "shall ... review disciplinary actions" taken against state civil service employees. (Cal. Const., art. VII, § 3, subd. (a).)

State civil service employees assigned to State Bargaining Units 8, 11, 12, and 13 (hereafter Units 8, 11, 12, and 13), represented by their unions, negotiated labor contracts with the Department of Personnel Administration (DPA), the governor's representative in labor contract negotiations. The labor contract, known as a "memorandum of understanding" (MOU) (Gov.Code, §§ 3513, subd. (b); 3515.5, 3517.5), [1] of each of the bargaining units, provides an alternative dispute resolution mechanism for litigating a disciplinary action in a forum other than the SPB.

The SPB and the Association of California State Attorneys and Administrative Law Judges (State Attorneys), and a citizen taxpayer, sought writs of mandate to prohibit implementation of the disciplinary provisions of the MOUs. In SPB v. DPA (C032633), SPB sought a writ of mandate challenging the provisions of the Unit 8 MOU. [2] The trial court denied SPB's petition because it lacked standing to…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.