International Ass'n of Fire Fighters v. Public Employment Relations Board
51 Cal. 4th 259
| Cal. | 2011Background
- City of Richmond laid off 18 of 90 firefighters in late 2003 to reduce labor costs amid a budget shortfall.
- Firefighters’ union Local 188 filed an unfair labor practice charge with PERB in January 2004 alleging failure to meet and confer over the layoff decision.
- PERB declined to issue a complaint, stating layoff decisions are not subject to bargaining and the union had not addressed negotiable effects.
- Superior Court and Court of Appeal upheld PERB, concluding layoff decisions are not within MMBA’s scope of representation but effects may be bargained.
- Court of Appeal recognized narrow mandamus review exceptions to PERB’s nonreviewability under MMBA; Vallejo’s framework guided scope of bargaining.
- California Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeal, holding: (a) PERB’s refusal to issue a complaint may be reviewed only under three narrow grounds (constitutional rights, statutory authority, erroneous statutory construction); (b) a layoff decision for fiscal reasons is not subject to bargaining, but the effects including timing, identity, and workload/safety of remaining employees are within the duty to bargain.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is PERB’s decision not to issue a complaint reviewable? | Local 188 argues PERB’s denial rests on erroneous statutory construction. | PERB and city contend no review unless Belridge Farms exceptions apply. | Yes, mandamus review is available for erroneous statutory construction under narrow Belridge Farms grounds. |
| Is a layoff decision for fiscal reasons subject to collective bargaining? | Vallejo requires bargaining over layoff-related issues, including the layoff decision. | Vallejo allows unilateral layoff decisions with bargaining over implementation and effects. | No for the layoff decision itself; yes for the effects, timing, and number/identity of layoffs and impacts on workload/safety. |
Key Cases Cited
- Belridge Farms v. Agricultural Labor Relations Bd., 21 Cal.3d 551 (Cal. 1978) (review limited to constitutional rights, statutory authority, or erroneous construction)
- Fire Fighters Union v. City of Vallejo, 12 Cal.3d 608 (Cal. 1974) (layoff decisions not negotiable, effects negotiable)
- Building Material & Construction Teamsters’ Union v. Farrell, 41 Cal.3d 651 (Cal. 1986) (scope of representation threading; managerial decisions balancing)
- Claremont Police Officers Assn. v. City of Claremont, 39 Cal.4th 623 (Cal. 2006) (clarified MMBA scope of representation; bargaining duty prior to budget adoption)
- First National Maintenance Corp. v. NLRB, 452 U.S. 666 (U.S. 1981) (balancing test for mandatory bargaining subjects)
- N.L.R.B. v. United Nuclear Corp., 381 F.2d 972 (10th Cir. 1967) (unilateral layoff decisions; need to bargain over timing/number affected)
- NLRB v. 1199, National Union of Hospital & Health Care Employees, 824 F.2d 318 (4th Cir. 1987) (layoffs and labor costs; bargaining over results may be required)
- Fibreboard Corp. v. Labor Board, 364 U.S. 203 (Supreme Court 1964) (conflict over labor cost reductions within bargaining framework)
- Southern California Dist. Council of Laborers, Local 1184 v. Ordman, 318 F.Supp. 633 (C.D. Cal. 1970) (illustrated an extreme review scenario under NLRA precedents)
- Los Angeles County Civil Service Com. v. Superior Court, 23 Cal.3d 55 (Cal. 1978) (recognition that employer may unilaterally decide layoffs but bargain over timing/number/identity)
- State Ass’n. of Real Property Agents v. State Personnel Bd., 83 Cal.App.3d 206 (Cal. App. 1978) (recognition of balancing approach under MMBA)