ADJ15256075 — California WCAB decision

What the panel ordered

Petition for Reconsideration denied, affirming WCJ's finding that WCAB lacks jurisdiction over the claim due to the carve-out agreement and that jurisdiction lies with the Sam Hale ADR process.

Applicant seeks reconsideration of the Findings of Fact, Order issued on May 2, 2023 by a WCJ, which found the WCAB lacks jurisdiction over the claim due to the Sam Hale carve-out agreement under Labor Code section 3201.7 and deferred dismissal of the Application for Adjudication of Claim.

Read the official decision →

What was disputed, and how it came out

Each issue the panel decided, with the reasoning it gave. An outcome is what this panel did on this record — not a rule, and not a prediction.

Jurisdiction / venueDefendant prevailed

The WCAB lacks jurisdiction over the claim because jurisdiction is vested in the Sam Hale ADR process under Labor Code section 3201.7 and WCAB Rule 10990; allegations of forgery and unfair labor practices do not confer jurisdiction to the WCAB.

From the decision · page 1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the Findings of Fact, Order (F&O) issued on May 2, 2023 by a workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). The WCJ found that the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) lacks jurisdiction to address the validity of the May 19, 2016 decision of the Administrative Director of the Department of Industrial Relations (AD) recognizing Samuel Hale's Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) process under the collectively bargained Labor-Management Agreement (WCA) pursuant to Labor Code1 section 3201.7 (Sam Hale carve-out agreement); and, jurisdiction over applicant's workers' compensation claim is with the Sam Hale carve-out agreement pursuant to section 3201.7 and WCAB Rule 10990 (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10990). The WCJ then deferred the dismissal of applicant's Application for Adjudication of Claim.

The facts that decided it

What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.

The claim is subject to the Sam Hale carve-out agreement under Labor Code section 3201.7, which vests jurisdiction in the Administrative Director and the ADR process, not the WCAB.

Favours Defendant prevailed

This statutory framework limits WCAB jurisdiction and mandates deferral to the ADR process for claims covered by the carve-out agreement.

From the decision · page 1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the Findings of Fact, Order (F&O) issued on May 2, 2023 by a workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). The WCJ found that the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) lacks jurisdiction to address the validity of the May 19, 2016 decision of the Administrative Director of the Department of Industrial Relations (AD) recognizing Samuel Hale's Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) process under the collectively bargained Labor-Management Agreement (WCA) pursuant to Labor Code1 section 3201.7 (Sam Hale carve-out agreement); and, jurisdiction over applicant's workers' compensation claim is with the Sam Hale carve-out agreement pursuant to section 3201.7 and WCAB Rule 10990 (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10990). The WCJ then deferred the dismissal of applicant's Application for Adjudication of Claim.

Applicant's allegations of forged signatures and unfair labor practices do not affect WCAB jurisdiction and are outside its authority.

Favours Defendant prevailed

The WCAB cannot adjudicate union membership or unfair labor practice claims, which are under other agencies' jurisdiction.

From the decision · page 4As to the issue of whether the alleged employer fraud in forging applicant's signatures on employment documents affects jurisdiction, we note that the issues presented by applicant on reconsideration were similarly raised and determined in the Sanchez case. We find Sanchez relevant and persuasive in this matter.6 The allegations of both applicants in Sanchez were that they were told to sign paperwork without understanding or explanation, and were unaware they were members of a union. (Sanchez, supra, 85 Cal.Comp.Cases at *11-13.) The allegations in Sanchez are analogous to the allegations of signature forgery by applicant in this case essentially, they are all accusations of unfair labor practices, and may implicate the AD's approval of Sam Hale's carve-out agreement.

Applicant did not raise the issue of a clear and unmistakable waiver of judicial rights at trial, so the WCAB cannot consider it now without violating due process.

Favours Defendant prevailed

Due process requires issues to be raised and litigated at trial before the WCAB can rule on them.

From the decision · page 3applicant did not raise the issue of whether there was a clear and unmistakable waiver of his right to adjudicate his injury claim in the California workers' compensation system in the WCA or Sam Hale carve-out agreement. Finally, the WCJ recommended denial because pursuant to section 3201.7, subdivision (a)(3)(A) (section 3201(a)(3)(A)) and WCAB Rule 10990, applicant retains his right to due process first through the Sam Hale carve-out agreement process, and then in any reconsideration to the WCAB following the exhaustion of his administrative remedies.

The rules the panel named

Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.

California Labor Code

Labor Code section 3201.7

Confers jurisdiction to the Administrative Director for recognition of labor-management agreements and limits WCAB jurisdiction over claims covered by such agreements.

From the decision · page 1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the Findings of Fact, Order (F&O) issued on May 2, 2023 by a workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). The WCJ found that the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) lacks jurisdiction to address the validity of the May 19, 2016 decision of the Administrative Director of the Department of Industrial Relations (AD) recognizing Samuel Hale's Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) process under the collectively bargained Labor-Management Agreement (WCA) pursuant to Labor Code1 section 3201.7 (Sam Hale carve-out agreement); and, jurisdiction over applicant's workers' compensation claim is with the Sam Hale carve-out agreement pursuant to section 3201.7 and WCAB Rule 10990 (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10990). The WCJ then deferred the dismissal of applicant's Application for Adjudication of Claim.

California Code of Regulations, title 8, section 10990

WCAB Rule 10990

Provides for appeals from ADR decisions to the WCAB, preserving due process rights.

From the decision · page 1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the Findings of Fact, Order (F&O) issued on May 2, 2023 by a workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). The WCJ found that the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) lacks jurisdiction to address the validity of the May 19, 2016 decision of the Administrative Director of the Department of Industrial Relations (AD) recognizing Samuel Hale's Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) process under the collectively bargained Labor-Management Agreement (WCA) pursuant to Labor Code1 section 3201.7 (Sam Hale carve-out agreement); and, jurisdiction over applicant's workers' compensation claim is with the Sam Hale carve-out agreement pursuant to section 3201.7 and WCAB Rule 10990 (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10990). The WCJ then deferred the dismissal of applicant's Application for Adjudication of Claim.

U.S. Supreme Court

Wright v. Universal Maritime Service Corp. (1998) 525 U.S. 70

Requires a clear and unmistakable waiver of the right to a judicial forum, but the issue was not raised at trial and ADR decisions are appealable to the WCAB.

From the decision · page 1Applicant contends that the WCAB has jurisdiction over his claim because his signatures were forged on union documents and therefore, he was not a union member and cannot be subject to the Sam Hale carve-out agreement; that the WCJ's decision is contrary to Wright v. Universal Maritime Service Corp., et al. (1998) 525 U.S. 70, which requires employees to give a "clear and unmistakable waiver" of their right to a judicial forum; that Costa v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1998) 65 Cal.App.4th 1777 [63 Cal.Comp.Cases 814] was decided before Wright and therefore

ADJ15256075 · July 20, 2023

What the panel ordered

What was disputed, and how it came out

Your case already resembles someone else’s. Find whose.

The facts that decided it

The rules the panel named

What proof carried it

About this page