In Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 1756 v Superior Court, the State's high Court ruled that a union cannot sue under either of these laws unless the union itself has suffered an actual injury.

 

The Amalgamated Transit Union case was brought by two unions and 17 individual employees against three transportation companies.  The plaintiffs claimed that the employers failed to provide meal and rest periods as required under the Labor Code and an Industrial Welfare Commission wage order.  They sought a whopping $10,608,000 in unpaid wages, plus over $2.6 million in penalties and other relief.  For purposes of this lawsuit, the unions claimed to represent over 150 current and former employees.

 

The Supreme Court (agreeing with two lower courts) ruled the unions did not have the right to sue the employer under either the Private Attorneys General Act or the Unfair Competition Law. This is because the unions themselves were not injured by the employer's alleged failure to provide meal and rest periods.

 

The Court reiterated that under the voter initiative Proposition 64, only a "person who has suffered an injury in fact and has lost money or property as a result of the unfair competition" may bring a "representative action" under the Unfair Competition Law.  Similarly, the Private Attorneys General Act only authorizes a civil action "by an aggrieved employee on behalf of himself or herself and other current or former employees."

 

As a practical matter, unions may continue to be involved "behind the scenes" in lawsuits under these statutes.  From now on, however, a union seeking to initiate such a lawsuit must convince an employee who has suffered injury to be the named plaintiff.