Until 2011, Article V of the charter of the City of Palo Alto, California required binding interest arbitration for certain labor disputes with its public safety unions. Facing a budget crisis in 2010 and 2011, the City council proposed modifying Article V to require cheaper dispute resolution procedures. The proposal, called “Measure D,” was put to a popular vote in November 2011, and passed.
California’s Meyers-Milias-Brown Act (MMBA) requires that municipalities consult in good faith with its public safety unions before implementing such a change. IAFF Local 1319 (Union) challenged the implementation of Measure D before the City’s Public Employment Relations Board (PERB), as the Union was never consulted about the proposed modifications to the City’s dispute resolution procedure. Both PERB and the California Court of Appeals agreed that the passage of Measure D violated the MMBA. However, the bodies disagreed on the appropriate remedy. PERB ordered the City to repeal Measure D and restore Article V, while the Court felt that such an order violated the state constitution. Instead, the Court proposed that PERB could lawfully declare Measure D void, and remanded the case to see if it would do so. On remand, PERB declared Measure D void and directed the City to meet and consult with the Union upon request.
The City took no action to comply with either portion of PERB’s order, and so the Union sued the City directly in state court, seeking to void Measure D and restore the pre-amendment interest arbitration procedures. The trial court declined to outright void Measure D for several reasons – mainly that it represented the popular will of the City’s electorate – and instead imposed a multi-step order. The Court suspended the new procedures implemented by Measure D until the City consulted with public safety unions in good faith on dispute resolution procedures and retained jurisdiction. The Union appealed, seeking a full recission of Measure D and restoration of the interest arbitration procedures.
The California court of appeals agreed with the Union. In the lower proceeding, the trial court determined that the City had unlawfully exercised its right to submit a proposal for popular vote, since it failed to consult in good faith beforehand, as required by the MMBA. The Union argued that having come to this conclusion, the trial court was obligated to rescind Measure D, and its multi-step order was therefore beyond the Court’s jurisdiction. The appellate court noted that although the trial court commendably sought to balance several considerations – and was mostly concerned with rescinding a popularly-elected resolution – it was nonetheless required to invalidate Measure D due to the City’s failure to consult with the Union.
People Ex Rel. International Association of Firefighters, Local 1319, AFL-CIO v. City of Palo Alto, H049992, 2024 WL 2813174 (Cal. Ct. App., 2024).