Duty to Meet and Confer in Public Employment Relations: Boling v. PERB

Duty to Meet and Confer in Public Employment Relations: Boling v. PERB

Introduction

Boling v. Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) is a landmark decision by the Supreme Court of California that addresses the obligations of public employers under the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act (MMBA). The case revolves around whether the City of San Diego, through its mayor, was required to engage in "meet and confer" negotiations with employee unions before promoting a citizens' initiative aimed at eliminating pensions for new municipal employees.

Summary of the Judgment

The petitioners, including Catherine A. Boling and other union representatives, challenged the City of San Diego's actions under the MMBA. The central issue was whether the city's failure to "meet and confer" with employee unions constituted an unfair labor practice when the mayor initiated a citizens' initiative to reform public employee pensions.

The Court of Appeal had initially ruled in favor of the city, stating that placing a citizens' initiative on the ballot did not trigger the duty to meet and confer as stipulated by the MMBA. However, the Supreme Court of California reversed this decision, holding that the city, through its mayor, did indeed have an obligation to engage in good faith negotiations with the unions before pursuing the initiative. The Court emphasized the broad intent of the MMBA to foster communication and improve employer-employee relations.

The Supreme Court remanded the case for further proceedings to determine appropriate remedies for the violation, thereby reinforcing the duty of public employers to engage with employee representatives during policy changes affecting terms and conditions of employment.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment heavily relied on established precedents to interpret the MMBA's provisions:

  • Seal Beach Police Officers Assn. v. City of Seal Beach (1984): Established that the MMBA's meet-and-confer obligations could apply even when charter amendments are proposed.
  • Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn. v. City of San Diego (2004): Highlighted that the city cannot bypass collective bargaining obligations through alternative measures.
  • American Coatings Assn. v. South Coast Air Quality Management Dist. (2012): Clarified the standard of deference courts should grant to administrative agencies like PERB in interpreting labor laws.

These cases collectively underscored the necessity for public agencies to adhere to stipulated negotiation processes, reinforcing the legislative intent behind the MMBA.

Legal Reasoning

The Court's reasoning centered on two primary questions: the standard of review for PERB's decisions and the scope of the duty to meet and confer under the MMBA.

  • Standard of Review: The Court reiterated that PERB's legal interpretations and factual findings are entitled to deference unless clearly erroneous. The MMBA explicitly states that PERB's factual determinations are "conclusive" if supported by substantial evidence, applying a deferential standard especially in technical or specialized areas.
  • Scope of Duty to Meet and Confer: The Court emphasized that the duty is a "central feature" of the MMBA, requiring public agencies to engage with employee representatives before making policy decisions affecting employment terms. Even when a mayor acts as an agent of the city, promoting initiatives that affect employee benefits, the obligation to negotiate remains intact.

The Court rejected the Court of Appeal's narrower interpretation, arguing that allowing public officials to bypass meet-and-confer requirements undermines the MMBA's objectives of promoting communication and improving labor relations.

Impact

This judgment has significant implications for public employment relations in California:

  • Strengthened Negotiation Obligations: Public employers must engage in good faith negotiations with employee unions before pursuing policy changes, including through citizens' initiatives.
  • Agency Deference: Administrative bodies like PERB retain substantial authority in interpreting labor statutes, ensuring consistency and expertise in adjudicating disputes.
  • Limitations on Executive Actions: City officials cannot use their positions to circumvent established labor negotiation processes, ensuring that employee rights are protected in policy-making.

Future cases involving public employment policies will likely reference this judgment to determine the extent of negotiation obligations, particularly when strategic initiatives are involved.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Meet and Confer: A legal requirement under the MMBA where public employers must engage in negotiations with employee unions regarding wages, hours, and other employment conditions before making policy changes.
Deferential Review: A judicial approach where courts give significant weight to the interpretations and findings of administrative agencies like PERB, only overturning them if they are clearly wrong.
Meyers-Milias-Brown Act (MMBA): California state law governing labor relations between public employers and employee unions, emphasizing negotiation and communication to improve employment conditions.
Citizens' Initiative: A process allowing citizens to propose and vote on legislation or policy changes directly, bypassing the formal legislative or administrative channels.

Conclusion

The Boling v. Public Employment Relations Board decision reinforces the essential role of negotiation and collaboration between public employers and employee unions under the MMBA. By affirming that public officials cannot circumvent meet-and-confer obligations through mechanisms like citizens' initiatives, the Court ensures that employee rights and interests are adequately represented in policy-making processes. This judgment upholds the legislative intent of the MMBA, promoting effective communication and fostering improved labor relations within public agencies. As a result, public employers must diligently engage with employee representatives, ensuring that changes to employment terms are collaboratively and transparently negotiated.

Case Details

Year: 2018
Court: SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA

Judge(s)

Carol A. Corrigan

Attorney(S)

Lounsberry Ferguson Altona & Peak, Kenneth H. Lounsbery, Escondido, James P. Lough, Alena Shamos, Escondido, and Yana L. Ridge for Petitioners and Real Parties in Interest Catherine A. Boling, T.J. Zane and Stephen B. Williams in Nos. D069626 and D069630. Jan I. Goldsmith and Mara W. Elliott, City Attorneys, Daniel F. Bamberg and George F. Schaefer, Assistant City Attorneys, Michael Travis Phelps, Chief Deputy City Attorney, and Walter C. Chung, Deputy City Attorney, for Petitioner and Real Party in Interest City of San Diego in Nos. D069630 and D069626. Jones Day, Beth Heifetz, Gregory G. Katsas, G. Ryan Snyder, Karen P. Hewitt and Brian L. Hazen, San Diego, for San Diego Taxpayers Educational Foundation as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Petitioner and Real Party in Interest City of San Diego in Nos. D069630 and D069626. Renne Sloan Holtzman Sakai, Arthur A. Hartinger, Jonathan V. Holtzman, San Francisco, and Alexander Volberding for League of California Cities, California State Association of Counties and International Municipal Lawyers Association as Amici Curiae on behalf of Petitioner and Real Party in Interest City of San Diego in Nos. D069630 and D069626. Meriem L. Hubbard and Harold E. Johnson, Sacramento, for Pacific Legal Foundation, Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association and National Tax Limitation Committee as Amici Curiae on behalf of Petitioner and Real Party in Interest City of San Diego in Nos. D069630 and D069626. J. Felix de La Torre, Wendi L. Ross, Sacramento, Mary Weiss and Joseph W. Eckhart for Respondent. Weinberg, Roger & Rosenfeld, Kerianne R. Steel and Anthony J. Tucci for Service Employees International Union, California State Council as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Respondent. Smith, Steiner, Vanderpool & Wax and Ann M. Smith, San Diego, for Real Party in Interest San Diego Municipal Employees Association in No. D069630. Smith, Steiner, Vanderpool & Wax and Fern M. Steiner, San Diego, for Real Party in Interest San Diego City Firefighters Local 145, IAFF, AFL-CIO in No. D069626. Rothner, Segall & Greenstone, Ellen Greenstone, Pasadena, and Connie Hsiao for Real Party in Interest AFCSME, AFL-CIO, Local 127 in No. D069626. Law Offices of James J. Cunningham and James J. Cunningham for Real Party in Interest Deputy City Attorneys Association of San Diego in No. D069626. Leonard Carder, Andrew J. Ziaja and Arthur Liou, Oakland, for International Federation of Professional and Technical Employees Local 21, Operating Engineers Local Union No. 3 and Marin Association of Public Employees as Amici Curiae on behalf of Real Parties in Interest and Respondent. Reich, Adell & Cvitan, Marianne Reinhold, Santa Ana, Laurence S. Zakson and William Y. Sheh, Los Angeles, for Orange County Attorneys Association as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Real Parties in Interest and Respondent. Woodley & McGillivary, Thomas A. Woodley and William W. Li for The International Association of Fire Fighters as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Real Parties in Interest. Law Office of Michael A. Conger and Michael A. Conger, Rancho Santa Fe, for San Diego Police Officers Association as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Real Parties in Interest.

Comments