AUTHORS*
Kerianne Steele
Ann Surapruik
Pacifica Firefighters Ass'n v. City of Pacifica, 76 Cal. App. 5th 758 (2022)
In September 2019, after reaching an impasse in contract negotiations, the Pacifica Firefighter Association (PFFA) filed a petition for writ of mandate and a complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief seeking to enforce Measure F. The trial court denied PFFA's request to require the City of Pacifica (City) to follow Measure F, and the Court of Appeal affirmed.
Voters passed Measure F in 1988 "to resolve an impasse in wage and benefit negotiations should they occur" between the City and the recognized union of the City's firefighters. Measure F prescribes procedures in the event of an impasse, including among other things, the creation of a three-member "Factfinding Board" to investigate, conduct hearings and receive evidence from the City and the union on issues in dispute, including salaries and benefits. The Board's non-binding recommendations must be submitted to the City Council. On issues of wages and benefits, the City Council must follow and apply the prevailing wage and benefit criteria set forth in Measure F. Under Measure F, absent an agreement to the contrary, the top-step salaries of Fire Captains in the City must be fixed at an amount not less than the average for top-step salaries of fire captains in five neighboring cities.
The trial court found Measure F preempted by California's Meyers-Milias-Brown Act (MMBA) and an unlawful delegation of power. First, Measure F's mandate, which requires salary parity with the average of neighboring jurisdictions, conflicts with the MMBA's authorization for public agencies to unilaterally impose their last, best, and final offer should negotiations fail. Second, the factfinding requirements of Measure F directly conflicted with the MMBA's requirement that the Factfinding Board weigh specified factors, including the interests and welfare of the public and financial ability of the public agency when developing recommendations. Lastly, because Pacifica is a general law city, which gives the City Council exclusive authority to set compensation for its employees, the court found Measure F unenforceable as an unlawful delegation of that power by the electorate.
On appeal, the Union argued that Measure F was similar to an ordinance setting the salary of firefighters in the City of Alhambra which was upheld in Kugler v. Yocum, 69 Cal. 2d 371 (1968). However, in affirming the lower court's decision, the Court of Appeal emphasized a number of points. First, since Measure F fixed firefighter compensation at a minimum level, the Pacifica City Council had no discretion on the issue. Second, the Court fund that there is a difference between a voter-adopted measure and a city council-adopted measure, particularly in the context of a general law municipality like the City of Pacifica. A charter city, such as the City of Alhambra, governs itself and expressly authorizes voters to adopt legislation that its city council can enact. In contrast, the powers of a general law city, like the City of Pacifica, include only those powers expressly conferred on it by the Legislature. As a general law city, the City of Pacifica is subject to a law which has been interpreted to bar voters from delegating the exclusive authority of the City Council to fix employee compensation. Consequently, the Court of Appeal affirmed the lower court's holding that Measure F is unenforceable as a usurpation of authority the Legislature granted exclusively to city councils.
The Court of Appeal also affirmed the preeminence of the MMBA, which "deals with a matter of statewide concern, and [whose] standards may not be undercut by contradictory rules and procedures that would frustrate its purposes." Here, again,
[Page 17]
the Court differentiated between the City of Alhambra ordinance, which was charter-authorized legislation, and the City of Pacifica measure, which was set for the City by an electorate that did not have the authority do so. The Court held that Measure F precludes the city council from exercising its right under the MMBA to impose its last, best, and final offer in the event of an impasse. As a...
