California Court of Appeal Vindicates Public Employee Bargaining Rights
KATHLEEN N. MASTAGNI STORM
Managing Partner
Mastagni Holstedt, APC
On June 3, 2024, the Sixth District Court of Appeal (DCA) issued a published decision vindicating the bargaining rights of the Palo Alto Firefighters, IAFF Local 1319.1 The dispute originated in 2011, when the City circumvented its obligation to meet and consult with public safety unions, and instead unlawfully submitted a ballot measure directly to the voters. This procedural violation resulted in the repeal of binding interest arbitration to resolve impasses in negotiations for fire and police employees from the City Charter.
Understanding the broad significance of this case beyond the City of Palo Alto, the Peace Officers Research Association of California and its Legal Defense Fund (collectively, PORAC) funded the filing of an amicus brief to bolster Local 1319’s efforts to protect collective bargaining rights. PORAC recognized that “many of its constituent unions will be impacted by a decision that prevents an employee organization from seeking relief when a public agency unlawfully circumvents an employee organization’s statutory collective bargaining rights.” Other supportive amicus briefs were filed by the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB); the police officers’ associations of Oakland, San Francisco and Palo Alto; the California Professional Firefighters Association and the International Association of Firefighters.
After over 12 years of litigation, the Sixth DCA ordered invalidation of the measure and the restoration of binding interest arbitration. The City did not appeal the decision, which became final on July 3, 2024.
Case Background
Over a decade ago, the City of Palo Alto repealed binding interest arbitration from the City Charter through a procedurally defective ballot measure. Although the change would clearly impact negotiable impasse procedures, the City neglected to meet and consult with the affected public safety unions. Local 1319 challenged the City’s improper actions and filed an unfair practice charge with PERB. In those proceedings, the City claimed that it believed Government Code Section 3507 of the Meyers-Milias Brown Act (MMBA) did not require prior consultation with the unions. This argument was unavailing, as PERB found the City’s actions were “neither justified nor excused,” and consequently ordered invalidation of the measure.2 The City appealed PERB’s decision to the Sixth DCA.
The Court of Appeal upheld PERB’s decision, holding that the City was required to meet and consult with Local 1319 in good faith before submitting the repeal measure to the voters.3 However, the appellate court found that PERB’s order invalidating the measure violated the separation of powers doctrine, as PERB cannot order a city to take a legislative act and thus could not direct the City to rescind a resolution. Accordingly, the Sixth DCA remanded the case to PERB to modify its remedy.
On remand, PERB’s decision stated, “[a] policy change subject to the duty to meet and confer and implemented without meeting and conferring, is a fait accompli, which, if left in place, would compel the union to ‘bargain back’ to the status quo [citations] and make impossible the give and take that are the essence of good faith consultation.”4
PERB’s modified order voided the City’s act of placing the measure on the ballot, with the purpose of returning the parties to status quo to allow the necessary good faith consultation.
Despite PERB’s clear intent to restore binding interest arbitration procedures, the City refused to voluntarily rescind the measure and reinstate the Charter article. This forced Local 1319 to pursue a legal mechanism that could directly invalidate the measure: Local 1319 petitioned the Attorney General, seeking leave to sue on behalf of the State of California in a writ in quo warranto in Superior Court.5 This form of writ is an ancient process by which the court can declare a government entity exercised a right or privilege unlawfully, and invalidate that act. The Attorney General’s Office granted leave to sue, stating, “permitting the requested quo warranto action would serve th[e] public interest.”6 The Attorney General identified the statewide interests in enforcing the MMBA, ensuring ballot measures are enacted correctly and promoting stable employer–employee relations.
Local 1319 prevailed in the quo warranto action, with a Superior Court judge finding the City unlawfully exercised its right to place the measure on the ballot. Nevertheless, the judge refused to invalidate the measure. Rather, enforcement of the measure was stayed until the parties met and consulted in good faith. After such consultation, the City could reaffirm the repeal of interest arbitration from the Charter through legislative action. The court fashioned this “incremental” remedy in an attempt to balance competing factors, including the will of the electorate that passed the measure, and because the court viewed the City’s actions as a good faith misinterpretation of the MMBA.
In order to challenge this ineffective remedy, Local 1319 appealed the decision back to the Sixth DCA. In this second appeal, the question presented to the court concerned whether a successful challenge to a municipal charter provision requires invalidation and, relatedly, whether the Superior Court abused its discretion in issuing its graduated remedy. In the appellate proceedings, the City relied on a semantic argument related to inconsistencies in the language of the quo warranto statutes. Local 1319 argued that the statute mandated invalidation, invalidation was the only way to give meaning to PERB’s decision voiding the measure, and invalidation was necessary to restore the status quo and return the parties to a level playing field. Both the City and Local 1319 agreed there was no California precedent addressing this particular question.
The Sixth District Court of Appeal Reverses Trial Court Judgment on Remedy
After briefing and oral argument, the Sixth DCA agreed with Local 1319’s position and ordered the Superior Court’s remedy be reversed, the measure be invalidated and interest arbitration be restored to the City Charter.7 While the appellate court acknowledged the trial court’s balancing considerations, it affirmed, “[t]he California Supreme Court has consistently held that the MMBA, and particularly its meet and confer provisions, are a matter of statewide concern.” The decision explained the lower court failed to give sufficient weight to the judgment of the Attorney General that compliance with the MMBA is a matter of statewide public importance. The Court of Appeal highlighted Local 1319’s position that “the public has an interest in ensuring charter amendments are validly enacted in accordance with the law and securing stable employer–employee relations.”
The Sixth DCA also found the Superior Court did not give PERB’s expertise and determinations the deference they were due, including that the failure to meet and consult was a per se violation and the traditional remedy is restoration of the status quo. When a unilateral action constitutes a per se violation, “[a] city’s good faith is not relevant to whether it has violated the MMBA or to mitigating its remedy.” Furthermore, the “city’s failures here were not merely technical but went to the central feature” of the legislative scheme to regulate employment practices.
In sum, the Sixth DCA held that invalidation of the measure was required: “Returning the parties to the status quo ante means returning them to the legal state as it existed before resolution 9189 was enacted.” The court remanded the matter to the Superior Court to issue a decision invalidating the measure and commanding restoration of binding interest arbitration.
The Significance of this Decision Reaches Public Safety Employees Statewide
This is the first published California Court of Appeal decision on this issue where a writ in quo warranto was granted invalidating a ballot measure passed in violation of the MMBA. Local 1319 President Joseph Penko noted, “the Palo Alto Firefighters felt strongly in 2011, and feel just as strongly today, that binding arbitration is an important tool for ensuring fair negotiations since striking is not an option in the fire service. Palo Alto’s decision to ignore the procedures set forth by law in revoking our rights was a miscarriage of justice. We are grateful that the courts have finally recognized that and restored our binding interest arbitration.” The restoration also affects all police and fire employees in the city.
The significance of this decision reaches far beyond the issue of procedurally defective ballot measures. The decision reaffirms PERB’s authority to effectively remedy MMBA violations and should stand to deter other municipalities from engaging in similar behavior. This is a major victory, not only for Local 1319, but for labor unions statewide.
About the Author
Kathleen N. Mastagni Storm, the managing partner of Mastagni Holstedt APC’s Labor Department, argued this case before the Sixth District Court of Appeal. She and Senior Associate Joshua A. Olander litigated the writ in quo warranto and appeal.
1 People ex rel. Int’l Assn of Firefighters, Loc. 1319, AFL-CIO v. City of Palo Alto (2024) 102 Cal. App. 5th 602.
2 Int’l Assn. of Firefighters, Local 1319 v. City of Palo Alto (2014) Dec. No. 2388M [39 PERC ¶ 25, p. 40.]
3 City of Palo Alto v. Public Employment Relations Bd. (2016) 5 Cal. App. 5th 1271.
4 Int’l Assn. of Firefighters, Local 1319 v. City of Palo Alto (2017) Dec. No. 2388a-M [41 PERC ¶ 162, p. 49].
5 Quo warranto procedures are codified in Code of Civil Procedure sections 803 through 811.
6 103 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 1, 4 (2020).
7 Palo Alto (2024), supra, 102 Cal. App. 5th 602.