Boling v. Public Employment Relations Board
236 Cal. Rptr. 3d 109
Cal.2018Background
- In 2010–2012 San Diego Mayor Jerry Sanders (a “strong mayor”) developed, promoted, and used city staff/resources to support a citizens’ initiative (the Initiative) to replace traditional pensions for most new city hires with a 401(k)-style plan.
- Sanders negotiated with private stakeholders and other city officials while the Initiative was drafted and circulated; the mayor’s office publicly endorsed and assisted the signature-gathering effort.
- The San Diego Municipal Employees Association and other unions demanded the city meet and confer under the Meyers‑Milia s‑Brown Act (MMBA); the city refused, asserting the Initiative was a citizen measure and placement on the ballot was ministerial.
- PERB found the mayor acted as the city’s bargaining representative, that the conduct amounted to a policy decision affecting terms and conditions of employment, and that the city violated the MMBA by failing to meet and confer; PERB ordered a make‑whole remedy.
- The Court of Appeal reversed, applying de novo review to PERB’s legal conclusions and holding citizen‑sponsored initiatives do not trigger meet‑and‑confer obligations under the MMBA.
- The Supreme Court granted review and reversed the Court of Appeal, holding PERB’s statutory interpretations merit deference and the mayor’s official sponsorship of the Initiative triggered the duty to meet and confer.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standard of review for PERB’s legal and factual determinations on MMBA matters | PERB’s legal interpretations should be accorded deference given its expertise; factual findings are conclusive if supported by substantial evidence | Court of Appeal: apply independent/de novo review to PERB’s legal conclusions when facts are undisputed | Court: deferential, situational review for PERB’s legal interpretations; PERB factual findings are conclusive if supported by substantial evidence (§ 3509.5(b)) |
| Whether a public official’s sponsorship of a citizen initiative triggers MMBA meet‑and‑confer duty | Unions/PERB: when an official uses office powers/resources to pursue policy affecting terms/conditions of employment, MMBA §3505 duty to meet and confer applies even if vehicle is a citizens’ initiative | City/Sanders: citizen‑sponsored initiatives are not proposals of the governing body and thus not subject to meet‑and‑confer; placement on ballot is ministerial | Court: §3505’s duty extends to governing bodies or their properly designated representatives; mayor’s official role in sponsoring/promoting initiative required meeting and conferring with unions |
| Whether section 3504.5 limits duty to measures proposed by governing body only | PERB: §3505 imposes the duty broadly on governing bodies and their representatives; §3504.5 is a notice provision and does not narrow §3505’s reach | Court of Appeal: §3504.5 confines duty to proposals by the governing body; citizen initiatives fall outside | Court: §3504.5 is principally a notice rule; §3505 establishes the substantive duty and applies to officials acting on agency’s behalf |
| Remedy available for MMBA violation via citizen initiative | PERB: can order make‑whole compensation for losses caused by MMBA violation but courts have exclusive authority to invalidate election results | City: relief invalidating election results is for courts, not PERB | Court: PERB may fashion make‑whole relief; invalidating election results is for courts—remedy issues remanded for further proceedings |
Key Cases Cited
- American Coatings Assn. v. South Coast Air Quality Management Dist., 54 Cal.4th 446 (discusses situational deference to specialized agencies interpreting statutes)
- Yamaha Corp. of America v. State Bd. of Equalization, 19 Cal.4th 1 (framework for judicial deference to administrative statutory interpretation)
- Seal Beach Police Officers Assn. v. City of Seal Beach, 36 Cal.3d 591 (MMBA duty to meet and confer applies to city proposals to voters; balancing employer obligations and city charter powers)
- County of Los Angeles v. Los Angeles County Employee Relations Com., 56 Cal.4th 905 (PERB’s interpretations of public‑employee labor statutes merit deference)
- Regents of University of California v. Public Employment Relations Bd., 41 Cal.3d 601 (substantial‑evidence standard for administrative factual findings)