80 Cal.App.5th 167
Cal. Ct. App.2022Background
- Sonoma County placed Measure P on the November 3, 2020 ballot to expand IOLERO’s independent oversight of the Sheriff’s Office (investigations, subpoena power, access to prior complaints/Brady materials, body-worn camera posting, ability to observe interviews, and discipline recommendations).
- The Sonoma County Deputy Sheriffs’ Association (DSA) and Sonoma County Law Enforcement Association (SCLEA) (the Associations) learned of the ballot placement after the Board’s August 6, 2020 resolution and requested meet-and-confer bargaining; the County did not bargain before placing Measure P on the ballot.
- The Associations filed unfair practice charges with PERB alleging the County violated the Meyers‑Milias‑Brown Act (MMBA) by failing to bargain decisionally and over effects for Measure P provisions that could affect discipline and investigatory procedures.
- PERB found the County violated the MMBA, declared several Measure P provisions (authorizing independent investigations, subpoenas, review of discipline records, observation of interviews, and discipline recommendations) void and unenforceable as to Association members, and ordered bargaining and make-whole relief.
- The County petitioned for writ review. The Court annulled PERB’s decisional‑bargaining finding and remedial order and remanded for PERB to apply the Claremont test’s first prong (whether the ballot‑placement decision had a significant and adverse effect on bargaining‑unit working conditions); the Court sustained PERB’s finding that the County failed to bargain over the foreseeable effects of certain provisions (e.g., body‑worn camera posting and contacting witnesses) and struck PERB’s remedy as exceeding PERB’s authority.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether PERB properly treated the Board’s decision to place Measure P on the ballot as a negotiable managerial decision without first determining if it had a significant and adverse effect on working conditions (Claremont prong 1). | Associations: the Measure P provisions change investigatory/discipline processes and thus required decision bargaining. | County: PERB should have applied Claremont’s first prong before finding decision bargaining required; International Fire Fighters governs. | Court: PERB erred by skipping Claremont’s first prong; remand for PERB to determine whether the ballot‑placement decision had a significant and adverse effect under Claremont. |
| Whether the County had a duty to bargain over the foreseeable effects of placing Measure P on the ballot before implementation. | Associations: effects (e.g., public posting of BWC, contacting witnesses/supervisors) were foreseeable and negotiable; County should have bargained before ballot placement. | County: duty to bargain arises only before applying provisions to employees, not before placing the measure on the ballot. | Court: County had a duty to engage in effects bargaining once it reached a firm decision and implemented it by placing Measure P on the ballot; PERB correctly found a violation as to those effects. |
| Whether PERB could declare voter‑approved Measure P provisions void and unenforceable as a remedial order. | Associations/PERB: voiding unlawful provisions restores status quo and remedies the MMBA violation. | County: invalidation of voter‑approved provisions is legislative interference beyond PERB’s authority; quo warranto is the proper remedy to challenge enacted measures. | Court: PERB exceeded its authority by declaring voter‑approved provisions void/unenforceable; remanded to craft permissible remedies (e.g., rescind resolution placing items on ballot or cease‑and‑desist implementation until bargaining). |
| Whether PERB has remedial jurisdiction over employee organizations representing peace officers. | Associations: PERB has jurisdiction over employee organizations even if members include Penal Code §830.1 peace officers. | County: section 3511 excludes peace officers from PERB’s remedial authority. | Court: PERB’s interpretation is correct—section 3511 excludes individual peace officers, not employee organizations; PERB retains jurisdiction over the Associations. |
Key Cases Cited
- Claremont Police Officers Assn. v. City of Claremont, 39 Cal.4th 623 (three‑part Claremont test: significant/adverse effect; whether effect arises from fundamental managerial decision; balancing if both present)
- International Assn. of Fire Fighters, Local 188 v. Public Employment Relations Bd., 51 Cal.4th 259 (layoff decisions: employer may decide layoffs but must bargain effects; balancing test categories)
- City of Palo Alto v. Public Employment Relations Bd., 5 Cal.App.5th 1271 (PERB’s remedial limits; may invalidate a resolution violating MMBA but cannot rescind legislative acts; quo warranto remedy discussion)
- Boling v. Public Employment Relations Bd., 5 Cal.5th 898 (deference to PERB in its expertise; standard of review for PERB statutory interpretation)
- Boling v. Public Employment Relations Bd., 33 Cal.App.5th 376 (Boling II) (PERB remedial limits regarding initiatives; quo warranto as appropriate remedy)
- Berkeley Police Assn. v. City of Berkeley, 76 Cal.App.3d 931 (citizens’ police review commission attendance was a managerial decision outside bargaining)
- Building Material & Construction Teamsters’ Union v. Farrell, 41 Cal.3d 651 (managerial decisions affecting public services can be fundamental and outside bargaining)