Watch the oral argument below:
On March 14, 2024, partner, Kathleen
Mastagni Storm, presented oral argument in the Sixth District Court of Appeals over
the City of Palo Alto’s illegal repeal of binding interest arbitration for Fire
and Police Department employee disputes. The legal battle started in 2011, when
the City of Palo Alto unilaterally placed Measure D on the ballot repealing
binding interest arbitration from the City’s Charter. Prior to the change, the
Charter required disputes involving wages, hours, and other terms and
conditions of employment be submitted to binding arbitration. Palo Alto voters
passed Measure D in November 2011.
In 2020, Local 1319, on behalf of
the State of California, filed a Writ in Quo Warranto in superior court to
invalidate Measure D and restore the Charter’s binding interest arbitration
procedures. The superior court found in Local 1319’s favor, but declined to
rescind the unlawful charter amendment. Therefore, the State and Local 1319
appealed the decision. On Thursday, March 14th, the 6th
District Court of Appeals heard argument on what the appropriate remedy should
be.
The
Backstory:
Around 2010, the City of Palo Alto began
efforts to remove the Charter’s binding interest arbitration provision. Local
1319 immediately demanded to meet and confer with the City over the proposed
changes. From the beginning, the City adamantly refused. This resulted in Local
1319 filing an Unfair Practice Charge with PERB in 2011 alleging the City
violated section 3507 of the California Government Code. Section 3507 is part
of the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act (MMBA), and provides in part:
A public agency may adopt
reasonable rules and regulations after consultation in good faith with
representatives of a recognized employee organization or organizations for the
administration of employer-employee relations chapter…The rules and regulations
may include provisions for all of the following: … (5) Additional procedures
for the resolution of disputes involving wages, hours, and other terms and
conditions of employment.
The MMBA requires public agencies to
engage in a “meet and confer” process with representatives of affected employee
organizations before adopting rules/regulations related to the subjects
mentioned above. Here, the Local argued it had been unlawfully deprived of the
meet and confer rights to which the Local is entitled under Government Code
section 3507. PERB ultimately found that the City violated the MMBA by failing
to consult in good faith with the Local over the elimination of binding
arbitration. And PERB ordered the City’s resolution referring to voters the
ballot measure and to rescind the binding arbitration void.
Although PERB determined the City
violated the MMBA, it also held it could not overturn the election results repealing
the provision. PERB concluded a quo warranto action was the exclusive remedy
for this situation. A quo warranto action is a legal remedy used to revoke a
charter amendment.
As
such, the Local filed a quo warranto action in superior court asking the court
to determine whether the City’s charter amendment was invalid by reason of
noncompliance with the MMBA and whether the City was required to restore
binding arbitration.
In February of 2022, the superior court issued its final
decision concluding the City’s resolution to submit Measure D to the voters was
an unlawful exercise of authority within the meaning of California Code of
Civil Procedure § 803. Although the court ruled in favor of
the Local on some issues, it did not grant their requested remedy of
invalidation of Measure D.
Appeal to the Sixth
District Court of Appeals: What is the Appropriate Remedy?
Despite deeming Local 1319 the prevailing party, the
superior court’s remedy failed to provide meaningful relief. Instead of
invalidation, the trial court only enjoined the City from its unlawful action
until it (1) meets and consults and (2) reaffirms its repeal of binding
interest arbitration at a City Council meeting.
On appeal, Kathleen Mastagni Storm argued the appropriate
remedy is invalidation of Measure D and restoration of the binding arbitration
provision. This is the only remedy that vindicates Local 1319’s rights and
effectuates the purposes of the MMBA. The trial court’s remedy creates a
dangerous precedent encouraging MMBA violations and weakening union rights. As
the trial court did not restore the status quo ante and left Measure D intact,
Local 1319 is left trying to recoup its losses at the bargaining table. It also
encourages the City to engage in surface bargaining.
Invalidation of Measure D serves the public interest by
protecting and enforcing the MMBA. The public has an interest in ensuring
charter amendments are validly enacted in accordance with the law and securing
stable employer-employee relations. Failing to restore the status quo subverts both
the MMBA and the will of the Legislature while simultaneously ignoring the
public interest in promoting collective bargaining for the resolution of labor
disputes.
