collective warning in California

2019(See Thurman , supra , 203 Cal.App.4th at p. 1148 , 138 Cal.Rptr.3d 130 [an aggrieved employee who is acting as the proxy or agent of the Labor Commissioner or Labor and Workforce Development Agency by bringing a PAGA action may recover the civil penalty provided for in section 558 ].) Given that a claim for recovery of civil penalties provided for in section 558 is one that was originally bestowed by the Legislature on the Labor Commissioner, and that the only way an aggrieved employee can seek the civil penalties addressed in section 558 is through a representative PAGA claim, it becomes cle

2019(See Thurman , supra , 203 Cal.App.4th at p. 1148 , 138 Cal.Rptr.3d 130 [an aggrieved employee who is acting as the proxy or agent of the Labor Commissioner or Labor and Workforce Development Agency by bringing a PAGA action may recover the civil penalty provided for in section 558 ].) Given that a claim for recovery of civil penalties provided for in section 558 is one that was originally bestowed by the Legislature on the Labor Commissioner, and that the only way an aggrieved employee can seek the civil penalties addressed in section 558 is through a representative PAGA claim, it becomes cle

2018Federal labor law preempts a state-law claim that is either “founded directly on rights created by collective- bargaining agreements” or “‘substantially dependent on analysis of a collective- bargaining agreement.’” (Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams (1987) 482 U.S. 386, 394 .) However, it does not preempt a state-law claim merely because a party raises a defense that requires a court to interpret or apply a collective-bargaining agreement.

2013We agree with defendant that the trial court abused its discretion in overruling his objection to the question about the original defense used by people who were distributing 18 In the interest of clarity, according to the guidelines of the Attorney General, a cooperative “„must file articles of incorporation with the state . . . must follow strict rules on organization, articles, elections, and distribution of earnings, and must report individual transactions from individual members each year.‟” (Qualified Patients Assn. v. City of Anaheim (2010) 187 Cal.App.4th 734, 747 .) 24 marijuana for p

2006Only by embracing the collective inquiry and discussion stages, as well as the ultimate step of official action, can an open meeting regulation frustrate these evasive devices.” (Id. at p. 50, fn. omitted.) In Stockton Newspapers, Inc. v. Redevelopment Agency (1985) 171 Cal.App.3d 95 [ 214 Cal.Rptr. 561 ] (Stockton Newspapers), the court considered an “evasive device” beyond an informal gathering of the members of a legislative body.

2006Only by embracing the collective inquiry and discussion stages, as well as the ultimate step of official action, can an open meeting regulation frustrate these evasive devices.” (Id. at p. 50, fn. omitted.) In Stockton Newspapers, Inc. v. Redevelopment Agency (1985) 171 Cal.App.3d 95 [ 214 Cal.Rptr. 561 ] (Stockton Newspapers), the court considered an “evasive device” beyond an informal gathering of the members of a legislative body.

1986We did not conclude the absence of counseling attorneys was per se error, noting courts have discretion as to methods employed to advise defendants of their rights to counsel: “In misdemeanor arraignment proceedings the court has a modicum of discretion as to the method it uti- lizes in advising defendants of their constitutional rights, including the right to counsel. [Citation.] The court, in such proceedings, may collectively advise those charged with misdemeanors of their rights when there is assurance the announcement was heard and understood. [Citation.] And, the record can be made by su

1986We did not conclude the absence of counseling attorneys was per se error, noting courts have discretion as to methods employed to advise defendants of their rights to counsel: "In misdemeanor arraignment proceedings the court has a modicum of discretion as to the method it utilizes *576 in advising defendants of their constitutional rights, including the right to counsel. [Citation.] The court, in such proceedings, may collectively advise those charged with misdemeanors of their rights when there is assurance the announcement was heard and understood. [Citation.] And, the record can be made by

1985Only by embracing the collective inquiry and discussion stages, as well as the ultimate step of official action, can an open meeting regulation frustrate these evasive devices.” (Sacramento Newspaper Guild, supra, 263 Cal.App.2d at p. 50 ; fn. omitted.) The foregoing authorities make clear that the concept of “meeting” under the Brown Act comprehends informal sessions at which a legislative body commits itself collectively to a particular future decision concerning the public business.

1980(Mills v. Municipal Court, supra, 10 Cal.3d 288, 307 .) Although less stringent procedures for advising defendants of their rights are required in misdemeanor arraignment proceedings, “there can be no impairment of the fundamental constitutional rights of any defendant.” {In re Johnson, supra, at p. 336.) We conclude mandamus is an appropriate remedy when an inferior tribunal fails to recognize a defendant’s right to counsel.