issued a published decision vindicating
the bargaining rights of the Palo Alto Firefighters, IAFF Local 1319 over the
City’s effort to repeal binding interest arbitration to resolve impasses in
negotiations for fire and police employees. The appellate court previously held
the City must meet and consult with the union in good faith before submitting a
repeal initiative to the voters, but remanded the issue of remedy holding the
Attorney General must approve a Quo Warranto action to invalidate a voter
initiative. (City of Palo Alto v. Pub. Emp. Rels. Bd,
5 Cal. App. 5th 1271 (2016)) The trial court refused to invalidate the repeal
despite finding the City unlawfully exercised its right to place a ballot
measure before the voters. On this
second appeal, the appellate court invalidated the initiative, holding the
trial court abused its discretion in not providing this remedy which restores
the parties to the status quo. Kathleen Mastagni Storm argued this appeal.
Case Background
Over a decade ago, the City of Palo Alto repealed binding
interest arbitration from the City Charter through a ballot Measure. The matter
was litigated at PERB, as the City refused to meet and consult over the impasse
procedure changes. Local 1319 prevailed and PERB found it was an unfair labor
practice. The City then appealed the decision to the Sixth District Court of Appeal
(Sixth DCA). The Court of Appeal upheld PERB’s decision, but remanded the case
to PERB to modify its remedy. PERB initially invalidated the Measure, but the Appellate
Court found that remedy violated the separation of powers doctrine, as PERB
cannot order a city to take a legislative act. PERB’s modified order voided the
City’s act of placing the Measure on the ballot.
After
PERB’s decision became final, the City refused to restore the binding interest
arbitration procedures, forcing Local 1319 to seek leave to sue on behalf of
the State of California in a Writ in Quo Warranto. The writ is an ancient
process by which the court can declare a government entity exercised or held a franchise
unlawfully and invalidate the act. Here, the City unlawfully placed Measure D
before the electorate and Local 1319 sought to invalidate the measure. The Attorney
General’s office granted leave to sue on behalf of the State of California because
there is a statewide interest in enforcing the MMBA, ensuring ballot measures
are enacted correctly and ensuring stable employer-employee relations.
Local
1319 prevailed at the trial court, but the judge refused to order Measure D
invalidated. Rather, enforcement of Measure D was stayed until the parties met
and consulted in good faith. Then, the City could act on its repeal of interest
arbitration from the Charter. In order to challenge the remedy, Local 1319
appealed the decision back to the Sixth DCA. Here, the question presented to
the Sixth DCA concerned whether a successful challenge to a municipal charter
provision requires invalidation and whether the trial court abused its
discretion in issuing its selected remedy. Local 1319 argued Code of Civil
Procedure section 809 required invalidation, that invalidation was the only way
to give meaning to PERB’s decision voiding the Measure, and that it was the
only way to restore the status quo and place the parties on a level playing
field.
Sixth District
Court of Appeal on Reversing Trial Court Judgment
The
Court of Appeal agreed with Local 1319 and ordered the trial court’s judgment
be reversed, interest arbitration be restored to the Charter and Measure D be
invalidated. The Court of Appeal noted that the trial court attempted to
balance competing factors, including the will of the voters, but failed to give
sufficient weight to PERB’s and the Attorney General’s judgment that uniform
compliance with the meet and confer requirements of the Meyers-Milias Brown Act
are matters of statewide public importance. The Sixth DCA found consideration of the local
electorate over the statewide importance of municipal compliance with the MMBA
was erroneous, and the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to
invalidate Measure D. The Sixth DCA highlighted that electors lack the power to
ratify a defective ballot measure.
The
Court of Appeal also found the trial court did not give sufficient weight to
PERB’s underlying determinations, including that the failure to meet and
consult was a per se violation and the traditional remedy is restoration of the
status quo. The Sixth DCA noted that the “MMBA’s meet and confer provisions do
not dictate the substance of a municipality’s labor provisions, but they do
mandate that municipalities follow a process that includes consultation with
affected organizations.” And the Court highlighted what Local 1319 pointed out,
“the public has an interest in ensuring charter amendments are validly enacted
in accordance with the law and securing stable employer-employee relations.” The
Sixth DCA determined invalidation was necessary to restore the status quo and
allow the parties to bargain on a level playing field if the City decided to
try and repeal binding interest arbitration in the future.
This is a huge victory for Local 1319, labor
unions statewide, and PERB. The decision reaffirms PERB’s authority to
effectively remedy MMBA violations and should stand to deter other
municipalities from engaging in similar behavior — circumventing their obligation
to meet and confer by submitting the matter directly to the voters.
This is the first published appellate decision on this
issue where a writ in quo warranto was granted in California invalidating a
ballot measure passed in violation of the Meyers Milias Brown Act (MMBA). Brian
Rice, President of California Professional Firefighters called this, “A historic
win for Firefighters across California. Measure D in Palo Alto was one
of the foundational attacks on public safety employees over a decade ago. The
legal overturning of Measure B in San Diego a few years ago and now Measure D
in Palo Alto are sentinel decisions for the California Firefighters.”
Joseph Penko, President of Local 1319 noted “the
Palo Alto Firefighters felt strongly in 2011, and feel just as strongly today,
that binding arbitration is an important tool for ensuring fair negotiations
since striking is not an option in the fire service. Palo Alto’s decision to
ignore the procedures set forth by law in revoking our rights was a miscarriage
of justice. We are grateful that the courts have finally recognized that and
restored our binding interest arbitration.”
For
more information, please see our previous blog post on this case, located here.
Partner Kathleen Mastagni
Storm and Senior Associate Joshua Olander represented Local 1319 throughout
this litigation and Kathleen argued the case in March of this year.
