In City of San
Diego v. PERB, an appellate court
said a citizen sponsored initiative to end pensions for new government employees did not require the city of San Diego (City) to meet and confer with the unions whose members would
be affected.
In November of 2010 then Mayor of
San Diego Jerry Sanders announced his plan to place a citizen sponsored
initiative on the June 2012 ballot. The
initiative was called the Citizens Pension Reform Iniative (CPRI). CPRI, if passed, would amend San Diego’s
city charter. The main effect of this
amendment was eliminating the pension program for specified future employees, and replacing the program with a 401(k) plan.
Mayor Sanders, along with many
prominent city employees, spent significant time and used considerable
resources to gain support for the initiative.
Eventually, enough signatures were collected to place the matter on the June
2012 ballot. Several unions demanded to
meet and confer with City Council before CPRI was placed on the
ballot. If CPRI passed Mayor Sanders
would have effectively ended future pensions for city employees without any discussion with
union representatives.
City Council declined to meet with the union representatives, citing a law which
requires a citizen sponsored initiative to be placed on the ballot if procedural
requirements were met. Here, the requirements were met, so CPRI was placed on the ballot and passed by the voters.
Several affected unions filed an
unfair labor practice charge with PERB. The
City claimed it had no discretion to keep CPRI off the ballot. According to the City, Mayor Sanders was
acting in his capacity as a private citizen. Since this was was not a government action, they argued, there was no requirement to meet and confer.
PERB found Mayor Sanders was acting as an agent of the City. Essentially, the City used one of its
stronger political figures to create, support, and pass a citizen sponsored
initiative. By doing so the City
bypassed the MMBA’s requirement to meet and confer, and ended the pension program
for most of the City's future employees. PERB found this
to be a violation of the MMBA, and ordered the City to repay
employees for lost compensation, including pension benefits. The City appealed.
On appeal one of the main
argument was over a 1984 case commonly referred to as Seal Beach. Seal Beach declared, before a
governing body can place a charter amendment on the ballot it must satisfy the
meet-and-confer obligations under the MMBA.
The unions argued Seal Beach
was applicable in the present case. In
other words, 33 years of precedent said governing bodies cannot bypass unions by
placing charter amendments on the ballot which will impact the terms and
conditions of employment. The Appellate
Court disagreed.
First, the decision dismissed any argument that mayor Sanders was acting as an agent of the City. Concluding CPRI was neither ratified by the City, nor an action of its agent, the court next addressed whether Seal Beach applied.
The decision said, what took place in San Diego was
different from Seal Beach. CPRI was a citizen sponsored
initiative. In Seal Beach, the city council was using its own authority to place
matters on the ballot without an initiative. Thus, CPRI was not a proposal by a governing body. Accordingly, there
was no obligation to meet and confer.
PERB's decisions are given significant deference on appeal. Their factual findings are considered final if there is any substantial evidence to support them. Despite this strong presumption, the court overturned PERB's decision.
Stay tuned as the unions are likely to seek review in the Supreme Court of California.
PERB's decisions are given significant deference on appeal. Their factual findings are considered final if there is any substantial evidence to support them. Despite this strong presumption, the court overturned PERB's decision.
Stay tuned as the unions are likely to seek review in the Supreme Court of California.
