Metropolitan Water District of Southern California. v. Winograd

by
The Metropolitan Water District challenged the decision of a hearing officer on a union grievance concerning the District’s use of a “comparative analysis” procedure in job postings. The trial court set aside the hearing officer’s decision on the grounds that it granted relief on an issue that was not ripe and exceeded the scope of the issue before him. The court of appeal affirmed. The issue before the hearing officer was framed as a question of whether the District violated the agreement in a particular job posting but the only union applicant for that posting did not meet the minimum requirements, so there was no actual controversy. Instead, the hearing officer was asked to speculate on the resolution of the hypothetical situation where a union applicant, meeting minimum requirements for the position, is subject to the comparative analysis procedure. In ordering the District to “cease and desist from the use of posting language or a recruitment procedure that provides ... for a comparative analysis” went beyond the hearing officer’s role, which is “limited” to hearing “the written grievance as originally filed.” The issue before the hearing officer was limited to the District’s use of language in job posting 3533719. View "Metropolitan Water District of Southern California. v. Winograd" on Justia Law