Desert Reg'l Med. Ctr. v. Miller

87 Cal.App.5th 295

303 Cal.Rptr.3d 412

DESERT REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, INC., Plaintiff and Appellant,

v.Leah MILLER, Defendant and Respondent.

Desert Regional Medical Center, Inc., Plaintiff and Appellant,

v.Lynn Fontana, Defendant and Respondent.

Desert Regional Medical Center, Inc., Plaintiff and Appellant,

v.Renita Romero, Defendant and Respondent.

E076058, E076069, E076205

Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Division 2, California.

Filed December 13, 2022

Hill Farrer & Burrill, Edward S. McLoughlin and Michael S. Turner, Los Angeles, for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Department of Industrial Relations Division of Labor Standards Enforcement, Max Norris and Jessica L. Fry for Defendants and Respondents.

OPINION

CODRINGTON, J.

I.INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Desert Regional Medical Center, Inc. (DRMC) appeals trial court orders denying DRMC's first amended petitions to compel nurses Leah Miller, Lynn Fontana, and Renita Romero (Respondents) to arbitrate their labor claims alleging rest and meal break violations by DRMC. DRMC contends the trial court erred by denying its petitions to compel arbitration and failing to stay Respondents' individual claims until after completion of arbitration of a separate proceeding initiated by Respondents' union (the California Nurses Association (Union)) on behalf of all nurses employed by DRMC in California. DRMC argues the trial court erred in denying DRMC's petitions to compel arbitration based on a finding DRMC waived the right to arbitrate. DRMC asserts that the issue of waiver must be determined by the arbitrator, not the trial court, and, even if the court has jurisdiction to decide waiver, there was insufficient evidence to support its finding of waiver. DRMC further contends Respondents are estopped from arguing waiver because Respondents' Union was responsible for DRMC's delay in petitioning to compel arbitration and agreed, in a separate proceeding, to arbitrate the Union's group grievance.

We reject DRMC's contentions and affirm the order denying DRMC's amended petitions to compel arbitration and request for a stay.

II.FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

The material facts are undisputed. Respondents are registered nurses (RNs) employed by DRMC. DRMC is a California corporation, which owns and operates Desert Regional Medical Center, California, an acute care hospital owned and operated by a subsidiary corporation of Tenet Healthcare Corporation (Tenet). DRMC provides healthcare services and is engaged in interstate commerce within the meaning of the Federal Arbitration ACT (FAA).

At all times relevant to this proceeding, Respondents have been employed pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) negotiated between DRMC and the Union. Article 11 of the CBA includes provisions governing RN rest breaks, meal periods, and payment of missed break premiums. Article 9 of the CBA sets forth mandatory grievance and arbitration procedures which must be followed when processing disputes involving interpretation or application of the CBA. Article 9E of the CBA states that individual RNs and DRMC may voluntarily agree to arbitrate "any dispute not otherwise arbitrable under the [CBA]" under the Tenet Fair Treatment Process (FTP), which provides dispute resolution procedures for employment related disputes.

Respondents signed a DRMC employment document, entitled "Acknowledgement," referred to herein as an Employment Arbitration Agreement. Under the agreement, Respondents agreed to submit non-CBA covered claims or disputes to final and binding arbitration before the American Arbitration Association (AAA).

The following summary of facts and procedural background show the chronological overlapping of the Union group grievance proceedings brought by the Union under the CBA on behalf of all of DRMC's RNs, and Respondents' individual claims decided by the state Labor Commissioner. DRMC appealed the Labor Commissioner's order in state court and then petitioned to compel arbitration of Respondents' individual claims. This appeal concerns the trial court denying DRMC's amended Petition to compel arbitration of Respondents' individual claims.

A. Union Group Grievance

In March 2015, the Union filed with DRMC, on behalf of DRMC's RNs, a meal and rest break grievance.

The Union group grievance alleges that DRMC was committing ongoing violations of the CBA and California state law by (1) altering employee timesheets without their consent; (2) refusing to provide employees with their time sheets when requested; (3) refusing to comply with the Union's request for time sheets from all employees; (4) not paying employees for missed meals in accordance with Wage Order requirements; and (5) not paying employees for their missed breaks in accordance with Wage Order requirements. The Union group grievance requested DRMC to immediately supply the Union with RN timesheets going back three years; to immediately cease and desist the practice of altering timesheets; and to pay employees for all missed meals and breaks.

In May 2015, the Union sent DRMC a letter requesting arbitration of the unresolved meal and rest period grievance under the CBA.

B. Respondents' Individual Claims

In July 2015 or 2016, Respondents and three other DRMC RNs each filed their own claims with the Labor Commissioner, alleging violations of Labor Code sections 203, 226.7, and 517, and Wage Order 5. The claimants requested payment of (1) unpaid rest period premium wages; (2) unpaid meal period premium wages; and (3) waiting time penalties under Labor Code section 203.¹

C. Union Group Grievance

The Union's grievance filed on behalf of all of DRMC's RNs (group grievance), was not informally resolved. Therefore, the Union referred the group grievance to arbitration under the CBA. In June 2018, the Union sent DRMC a letter noting that the unpaid meal and break group grievance remained outstanding.

D. Respondents' Individual Claims Before the Labor Commissioner

In February 2019, DRMC filed with the Labor Commissioner a brief entitled "Defendant's Jurisdictional Objections," arguing that the Labor Commissioner lacked jurisdiction to hear and decide Respondents' individual claims because they had to be resolved in another forum. DRMC asserted that the CBA required compliance with grievance procedures and arbitration, and Respondents' Employment Arbitration Agreements also required arbitration of Respondents' individual claims. DRMC argued that, at a minimum, the Labor Commissioner was required to defer hearing Respondents' claims until after Respondents' individual claims were arbitrated.

In February and March 2019, the Labor Commissioner heard under Labor Code section 98, Respondents' individual claims.² During the hearing, which lasted several days, the hearing officer heard testimony and the parties presented documentary evidence and arguments.

On July 19, 2019, the Labor Commissioner issued an administrative order, decision, or award of the labor commissioner (Order), which provided a detailed analysis of the Labor Commissioner's findings, analysis, and calculations. The Order stated that DRMC owed Respondents unpaid wages and interest, and ordered DRMC to pay Miller $64,120.64; Romero $58,835.87; and Fontana $51,156.97 for unpaid wages and interest.

E. Respondents' Individual Claims in Trial Court

On August 7, 2019, DRMC filed in the Riverside County Superior Court a notice of filing a de novo appeal of the Labor Commissioner's order awarding Respondents unpaid wages. DRMC stated in the notice that it was appealing the Order on the grounds the CBA and Wage Order required resolution of Respondents' individual claims through CBA's grievance and arbitration process. Instead of complying with those grievance and arbitration requirements, Respondents submitted individual wage claims to the Labor Commissioner. DRMC's notice of appeal of the Order further asserted that under federal arbitration law, the CBA grievance and arbitration procedures take precedent and must be exhausted before any other action is taken. DRMC argued that, therefore, the Labor Commissioner lacked jurisdiction over the Respondents' individual claims.

On August 26, 2019, DRMC filed notices of removal of DRMC's action appealing the Labor Commissioner's Order, to the federal district court on the ground the federal court had federal question jurisdiction under the federal Labor Management Relations Act ( 29 U.S.C. § 185 ).

On September 23, 2019, Respondents filed a motions to remand DRMC's case appealing the Order back to the state court.

F. Union Group Grievance

In October 2019, the Union sent DRMC a letter requesting a meeting to discuss the unresolved Union group grievance and a referral to arbitration.

G. Respondents' Individual Claims

On December 4, 2019, the federal district court granted Respondents' motion to remand back to the state court DRMC's action appealing the Labor Commissioner's Order. The federal court granted remand on the ground that " ‘[t]he right to remove a state court case to federal court is clearly limited to defendants.’ " ( Am. Int'l Underwriters (Philippines), Inc. v. Continental Ins. Co. , 843 F.2d 1253, 1260) (9th Cir. 1988) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1441 ).) The federal court explained that DRMC was not a defendant and therefore "forfeited its right to a federal forum when it initially filed this action in state court."

At trial setting conferences in January and February 2020, the court set the trial date for DRMC's action appealing the Labor Commissioner's order. The trial date was later vacated and converted to a trial setting conference because of Covid General Order 2020-15, dated April 22, 2020, regarding civil division emergency reorganization.

Upon remand, DRMC filed notices of related cases and requested transfer of DRMC's action appealing the Order, to a different courtroom or courthouse. On March 16, 2020, the trial court denied DRMC's request on the ground DRMC brought its motions in the wrong courtroom.

H. DRMC's Petition to Compel Arbitration of Respondents'...