City of Palo Alto v. Pub. Emp't Relations Bd.
2016 Cal. App. LEXIS 1029
Cal. Ct. App. 5th2016Background
- Palo Alto's charter (art. V) had binding interest arbitration for police and firefighters since 1978; City Council moved in 2010–2011 to place repeal/modification on the ballot amid budget concerns.
- IAFF Local 1319 (IAFF) repeatedly communicated it wanted to consult under the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act (MMBA) before any change; City staff/attorney took the position arbitration was a permissive (not mandatory) bargaining subject and meet-and-confer was not required.
- City proceeded through committee and Council meetings and on July 18, 2011 adopted a resolution referring a repeal measure to the November ballot; IAFF filed an unfair practice charge with PERB alleging failure to consult in good faith under Gov. Code §3507.
- An ALJ found for City (IAFF’s request untimely); PERB reversed, holding §3507 requires reasonable written notice and a reasonable opportunity to meet and that IAFF had timely requested consultation and had not waived the right.
- PERB ordered cease-and-desist, posting of notice, and directed the City Council to rescind its July 18, 2011 resolution (but declined to invalidate the election results, noting quo warranto is the court remedy).
- Court of Appeal: affirmed PERB on duty-to-consult and waiver issues (substantial evidence supports PERB), but annulled PERB’s order directing the City Council to rescind the resolution as violating separation of powers; remanded for PERB to strike that remedy and consider other appropriate relief (including voiding the resolution).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (IAFF) | Defendant's Argument (City) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether binding interest arbitration triggers MMBA consultation under §3507 | §3507 covers "additional procedures for resolution of disputes" so arbitration is a mandatory subject of consultation | Arbitration is a permissive subject of bargaining; §3507 cannot be read to require consultation on matters outside §3505 scope | Held: §3507's consultation duty is distinct from §3505 meet-and-confer; arbitration falls within §3507 consultation and PERB's interpretation is not clearly erroneous |
| Scope/nature of §3507 consultation (is it like §3505 meet-and-confer?) | Consultation requires a meeting and good-faith exchange akin to meet-and-confer (but not binding agreement) | Consultation should be narrower than §3505 due to different statutory language | Held: Consultation in §3507 is very similar to §3505 meet-and-confer (courts/PERB precedent supports parity) |
| Whether IAFF waived its right to consult by delay/failure to request timely meeting | IAFF requested consultation in July 2010 and again in 2011; City repeatedly denied obligation and confined input to public meetings; no clear and unmistakable waiver | City contends IAFF’s later requests were untimely and effectively waived rights; Council had adequate notice via public meetings | Held: PERB’s factual finding that IAFF did not waive its right is supported by substantial evidence—no clear and unmistakable waiver found |
| Remedy authority: can PERB order City Council to rescind a legislative resolution? | PERB may order rescission to restore status quo and effectuate MMBA remedies short of invalidating election (quo warranto is court remedy) | Directing rescission compels legislative action and violates separation of powers; only courts (via quo warranto) can void charter amendments | Held: PERB lacks authority to compel a legislative body to rescind (separation of powers); PERB must strike that remedy but may consider declaring the resolution void as an appropriate remedy on remand |
Key Cases Cited
- People ex rel. Seal Beach Police Officers Assn. v. City of Seal Beach, 36 Cal.3d 591 (Cal. 1984) (MMBA meet-and-confer obligation does not conflict with charter city's power to propose charter amendments)
- DiQuisto v. County of Santa Clara, 181 Cal.App.4th 236 (Cal. Ct. App.) (binding arbitration is a permissive bargaining subject under §3505)
- City of Fresno v. People ex rel. Fresno Firefighters, 71 Cal.App.4th 82 (Cal. Ct. App.) (discussing arbitration as permissive under NLRA/§3505)
- Vernon Fire Fighters v. City of Vernon, 107 Cal.App.3d 802 (Cal. Ct. App.) (unilateral adoption of rules in violation of MMBA may be void)
- Los Angeles County Civil Service Com. v. Superior Court, 23 Cal.3d 55 (Cal. 1978) (meet-and-confer requirements can coexist with charter-mandated procedures)
- El Dorado County Deputy Sheriff’s Assn. v. County of El Dorado, 244 Cal.App.4th 950 (Cal. Ct. App.) (invalidating county action taken in violation of meet-and-confer/local rules; court ordered county to proceed according to law)
- Glendale City Employees' Assn. v. City of Glendale, 15 Cal.3d 328 (Cal. 1975) (mandamus may compel ministerial acts to implement bargained terms; distinction between legislative and ministerial acts)
- Coachella Valley Mosquito & Vector Control Dist. v. California Pub. Employment Relations Bd., 35 Cal.4th 1072 (Cal. 2005) (factors for judicial intervention before administrative exhaustion; jurisdictional-exhaustion analysis)