By Kerianne Steele and Alejandro Delgado
Kerianne Steele is a shareholder at Weinberg, Roger & Rosenfeld in Alameda. She provides general representation to labor unions, primarily in the public sector. Alejandro Delgado is an Associate in the Los Angeles office of Weinberg, Roger & Rosenfeld. He represents and advises public sector unions in all aspects of labor and employment law.
Boling v. Public Employment Relations Bd., 5 Cal. 5th 898 (2018)
The California Supreme Court held that the City of San Diego was required to meet and confer with unions under the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act (MMBA) before it allowed voters to weigh in on a proposal to switch newly hired City workers from traditional pension retirement plans to 401(k)-style plans.
The case arose in 2010 when City officials proposed eliminating traditional pension retirement plans in favor of 401(k)-style plans for all newly hired City employees. Instead of proposing the change through a measure proposed by the City, Mayor Jerry Sanders helped launch the Citizens Pension Reform Initiative, because he was concerned about compromises that might result from the meet and confer process and because the City Council was unlikely to put his proposal on the ballot. In July 2011, the San Diego Municipal Employees Association demanded that the City meet and confer over the initiative under the MMBA. The City refused to meet and confer, arguing that state election laws required the City Council to place the initiative on the ballot without modification once the procedural requirements for a citizens' initiative were met. In January 2012 several unions filed unfair practices charges with the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) based on the City's refusal to meet and confer. In the meantime, the initiative appeared on the June 2012 ballot and was passed.
PERB determined that the City violated the MMBA by deciding through its agent, Mayor Sanders, to reject its meet and confer obligations and place the initiative on the ballot and ordered the City to pay its employees for all lost compensation, including the value of lost pension benefits. The City challenged PERB's decision by a writ petition and the court of appeal ruled that the City was not required to meet and confer before the placing the initiative on the ballot. The court of appeal reasoned that the judiciary accords no deference to agency determinations on legal questions falling outside the agency's expertise and then held that the City's decision to place a citizens' initiative measure on the ballot is purely ministerial and does not trigger the obligation to meet and confer.
The California Supreme Court reversed, stating that the questions at issue were resolved by settled law and relevant statutory language. The court ruled unanimously that the City was required to meet and confer with unions before it allowed voters to weigh in on the proposal to switch newly hired City workers from traditional retirement pension plans to 401(k)-style plans.
The court found that the interpretation of a public employee labor relations statute falls squarely within PERB's "legislatively designated field of expertise" in dealing with public agency labor relations. On that basis, the court stated that the more deferential...
