(1996) 14 Cal.4th 557
Supreme Court of California · Decided December 19, 1996
01. Facts
Tidewater Marine Western, Inc. and Zapata Gulf Pacific, Inc. are maritime firms that transported workers and supplies from the California coast to oil-drilling platforms in the Santa Barbara Channel (14 Cal.4th at p. 561). The Labor Commissioner sought to apply the Industrial Welfare Commission’s wage orders (including overtime requirements) to the firms’ employees; the firms sued, and the trial court enjoined enforcement of the wage orders as to these workers (id. at p. 561). The Court of Appeal reversed (id. at p. 561).
02. Procedural posture
The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeal, holding the wage orders could be enforced but that the agency’s unadopted interpretive policies were void (14 Cal.4th at p. 561).
03. Issue
Whether IWC wage orders govern employment in the Santa Barbara Channel, and whether the DLSE’s written interpretive policies, issued without Administrative Procedure Act rulemaking, are valid “regulations.”
Holding
The DLSE’s interpretive policies constitute regulations and are void because they were not adopted under the Administrative Procedure Act (the “underground regulation” rule); nevertheless, the agency properly exercised enforcement jurisdiction, and the IWC wage orders apply to the work at issue, so the trial court erred in enjoining their enforcement (14 Cal.4th at p. 561).
05. Reasoning
The court held that an agency’s policy of general application that interprets or implements a statute is a “regulation” that must go through APA rulemaking to be valid; the DLSE’s unpromulgated interpretive policies therefore carried no independent legal force. But the court separately concluded the wage orders themselves reached this employment and the Commissioner could enforce them, so the injunction was improper.
Practice Pointer
Tidewater is the go-to authority for attacking DLSE positions that were never adopted as regulations: such “underground regulations” are void and entitled to no deference. Counsel should invoke Tidewater to defeat reliance on unpromulgated DLSE manual provisions, while recognizing the wage orders themselves remain fully enforceable.
06. Open questions
Tidewater drew the line between binding regulations and void underground policies, but disputes recur over which agency pronouncements cross that line and how much persuasive weight a court may still give an agency’s unadopted interpretation.
Cite this entry
Tidewater Marine Western, Inc. v. Bradshaw (1996) 14 Cal.4th 557.
“these interpretive policies do constitute regulations and therefore are void because they were not adopted in accordance with the APA.” — 14 Cal.4th at p. 561
Source: California Official Reports – [insert durable courts.ca.gov / Official Reports link at verification].