In 2010, the Palo Alto City Council considered altering a provision in its charter. That provision required that certain labor disputes with its public safety unions be resolved through binding interest arbitration. The City believed that the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act (MMBA), at Government Code section 3507, did not require prior good faith consultation with its public safety unions.
The City Council adopted resolution 9189, which proposed that City voters amend the City Charter at article V to repeal binding interest arbitration and replace it with other dispute resolution procedures. The City held a special election in November 2011, and the voters passed Measure D, to repeal binding interest arbitration.
The firefighters’ union sued. In prior decisions, the Court of Appeal and the Public Employee Relations Board (PERB) both concluded that the City violated Section 3507 by enacting resolution 9189 and submitting Measure D to the voters without having first consulted in good faith with the firefighters’ union. The Court of Appeal remanded the case to PERB to determine the remedy.
PERB rejected the City’s objections that the City’s constitutional home-rule privileges insulated the voter-approved Measure D from PERB’s remedial reach. PERB ruled that the City’s action to refer Measure D to the voters was void, and directed the City to consult in good faith with the firefighter’s union upon request. Both the firefighters’ union and the City, however, disagreed about whether the City complied with PERB’s orders. The City did not reinstate the charter provision as it existed prior to the passage of Measure D.
The firefighters’ union then requested the California Attorney General (AG) to bring a quo warranto action to decide the remedy to the MMBA violation. The AG may authorize the use of the quo warranto procedure, under Code of Civil Procedure section 803, to sue on behalf of the people to determine whether any corporation – including a municipal corporation– has unlawfully held or exercised any franchise within the state. The AG authorized leave to sue, noting that the public has an interest in ensuring that City Charter amendments are validly enacted.
The firefighters’ union filed the quo warranto complaint. The union argued that the trial court should invalidate Measure D because the City failed to consult in good faith before placing it on the ballot. The City argued that the voter’s election was not an unlawful exercise of a franchise, and that the City’s MMBA violation should not invalidate the will of the electorate.
The trial court did not invalidate Measure D. Instead, it retained jurisdiction for the limited purpose of issuing a final judgment invalidating Measure D if: the City and the firefighters’ union agreed to use alternative procedures to binding interest arbitration; or the City passed a resolution to pursue a charter amendment alternative to Measure D; or PERB determined that the City failed to consult in good faith with the affected public safety unions. The firefighters’ union appealed.
The California Court of Appeal concluded that once the trial court determined that the City’s submission of Measure D to the voters violated the MMBA, the trial court abused its discretion by failing to invalidate Measure D. The Court of Appeal remanded the case to trial court to: 1) order the City to restore the pre-amendment portion of article V to the City’s Charter; 2) invalidate Measure D; and 3) provide any other appropriate relief.
People ex rel. International Association of Firefighters, Local 1319, AFL-CIO v. City of Palo Alto, 102 Cal.App. 5th 602 (2024).