Monday, March 18, 2024

Watch Kathleen Mastagni Storm’s Oral Argument in the Sixth District Court of Appeals on Behalf of the Palo Alto Professional Firefighters, IAFF Local 1319

Watch the oral argument below:

    On March 14, 2024, partner, Kathleen Mastagni Storm, presented oral argument in the Sixth District Court of Appeals over the City of Palo Alto’s illegal repeal of binding interest arbitration for Fire and Police Department employee disputes. The legal battle started in 2011, when the City of Palo Alto unilaterally placed Measure D on the ballot repealing binding interest arbitration from the City’s Charter. Prior to the change, the Charter required disputes involving wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment be submitted to binding arbitration. Palo Alto voters passed Measure D in November 2011.

    In 2020, Local 1319, on behalf of the State of California, filed a Writ in Quo Warranto in superior court to invalidate Measure D and restore the Charter’s binding interest arbitration procedures. The superior court found in Local 1319’s favor, but declined to rescind the unlawful charter amendment. Therefore, the State and Local 1319 appealed the decision. On Thursday, March 14th, the 6th District Court of Appeals heard argument on what the appropriate remedy should be.


The Backstory:

    Around 2010, the City of Palo Alto began efforts to remove the Charter’s binding interest arbitration provision. Local 1319 immediately demanded to meet and confer with the City over the proposed changes. From the beginning, the City adamantly refused. This resulted in Local 1319 filing an Unfair Practice Charge with PERB in 2011 alleging the City violated section 3507 of the California Government Code. Section 3507 is part of the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act (MMBA), and provides in part:


A public agency may adopt reasonable rules and regulations after consultation in good faith with representatives of a recognized employee organization or organizations for the administration of employer-employee relations chapter…The rules and regulations may include provisions for all of the following: … (5) Additional procedures for the resolution of disputes involving wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment. 

    The MMBA requires public agencies to engage in a “meet and confer” process with representatives of affected employee organizations before adopting rules/regulations related to the subjects mentioned above. Here, the Local argued it had been unlawfully deprived of the meet and confer rights to which the Local is entitled under Government Code section 3507. PERB ultimately found that the City violated the MMBA by failing to consult in good faith with the Local over the elimination of binding arbitration. And PERB ordered the City’s resolution referring to voters the ballot measure and to rescind the binding arbitration void.

    Although PERB determined the City violated the MMBA, it also held it could not overturn the election results repealing the provision. PERB concluded a quo warranto action was the exclusive remedy for this situation. A quo warranto action is a legal remedy used to revoke a charter amendment.

    As such, the Local filed a quo warranto action in superior court asking the court to determine whether the City’s charter amendment was invalid by reason of noncompliance with the MMBA and whether the City was required to restore binding arbitration.

    In February of 2022, the superior court issued its final decision concluding the City’s resolution to submit Measure D to the voters was an unlawful exercise of authority within the meaning of California Code of Civil Procedure § 803. Although the court ruled in favor of the Local on some issues, it did not grant their requested remedy of invalidation of Measure D.

Appeal to the Sixth District Court of Appeals: What is the Appropriate Remedy?

    Despite deeming Local 1319 the prevailing party, the superior court’s remedy failed to provide meaningful relief. Instead of invalidation, the trial court only enjoined the City from its unlawful action until it (1) meets and consults and (2) reaffirms its repeal of binding interest arbitration at a City Council meeting.

    On appeal, Kathleen Mastagni Storm argued the appropriate remedy is invalidation of Measure D and restoration of the binding arbitration provision. This is the only remedy that vindicates Local 1319’s rights and effectuates the purposes of the MMBA. The trial court’s remedy creates a dangerous precedent encouraging MMBA violations and weakening union rights. As the trial court did not restore the status quo ante and left Measure D intact, Local 1319 is left trying to recoup its losses at the bargaining table. It also encourages the City to engage in surface bargaining.

    Invalidation of Measure D serves the public interest by protecting and enforcing the MMBA. The public has an interest in ensuring charter amendments are validly enacted in accordance with the law and securing stable employer-employee relations. Failing to restore the status quo subverts both the MMBA and the will of the Legislature while simultaneously ignoring the public interest in promoting collective bargaining for the resolution of labor disputes.