On July 30, 2026, the Court of Appeal for the Second Appellate District, Division Seven, issued an unpublished decision in City of Los Angeles v. American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, Nos. B336981 and B340065. The court affirmed the Los Angeles Employee Relations Board order requiring the City to engage in effects bargaining and to make whole Coalition represented employees who suffered reduced pension and other benefits after the City suspended reciprocity between the Los Angeles City Employees Retirement System and the Water and Power Employees Retirement Plan. Although the Employee Relations Board exercises jurisdiction limited to the City of Los Angeles, the Court of Appeal expressly construed the Meyers Milias Brown Act in reaching its conclusions. That construction carries significant weight for every public employer and exclusive representative subject to the Act statewide. The decision confirms that when a public employer implements a nonnegotiable change that foreseeably affects retirement benefits, it must still bargain the effects of that change, and that make whole relief for resulting pension losses remains an available and appropriate remedy under the Meyers Milias Brown Act.
Factual Background
Beginning in 1980 the City and the Department of Water and Power maintained a reciprocal arrangement that permitted employees transferring between the two systems to carry pension service credit. In 2010 the Water and Power Employees Retirement Plan Board voted to suspend reciprocity after determining that net transfers from City service into the Department of Water and Power increased the Plan unfunded liability by approximately one hundred eighty three million dollars. After litigation and settlement in Romero et al. v. City Council of the City of Los Angeles, the City Council in December 2013 adopted Ordinance No. 182824, effective January 1, 2014. The Ordinance ceased crediting prior Water and Power Employees Retirement Plan service for benefit calculation purposes under the Los Angeles City Employees Retirement System, although such service continued to count solely for eligibility to retire. The Coalition of City of Los Angeles Unions, which includes the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees and several other organizations representing Los Angeles City Employees Retirement System members, demanded bargaining. The City provided information but refused formal meet and confer obligations.
LA ERB Ruling
The Coalition filed unfair employee relations practice charges. After extensive hearings the Employee Relations Board concluded that the City possessed no duty to bargain the underlying decision to suspend reciprocity yet retained a clear duty to bargain the effects of that decision. Those effects included disability retirement calculations, retiree health subsidies, protected leave return rights, and transfer practices. The Board ordered the City to meet and confer in good faith over those subjects. It further ordered the City to make whole any Coalition represented employee who sustained losses, including reduced pension or other benefits, from January 1, 2014, until the parties reached agreement or impasse or the Coalition failed to bargain in good faith. The Board also directed the City to cease and desist from applying the post 2013 Administrative Code provisions governing treatment of Water and Power Employees Retirement Plan service until that bargaining obligation was satisfied.
Superior Court Ruling
The trial court denied the City petition for writ of mandate and granted the Coalition cross petition seeking enforcement. The court further awarded the Coalition attorney fees under Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5. The City appealed both the judgment and the fee order. On appeal the City conceded its duty to engage in effects bargaining yet challenged only the remedy. It argued that the Employee Relations Board lacked statutory authority to order make whole relief, that the particular remedy failed to restore the status quo and conflicted with other provisions of law, that the order was vague and overbroad, that it violated separation of powers principles, and that the fee award was improper.
Court of Appeal Ruling
The Court of Appeal rejected each contention. It first held that Employee Relations Ordinance section 4.810, subdivision (f)(12), which authorizes the Board to perform such other duties as may be necessary to carry out its responsibilities, empowers the Board to award retroactive make whole relief. The court reasoned that local rules implementing the Meyers Milias Brown Act must remain consistent with the policies of that Act. Government Code section 3509, subdivision (d), expressly grants the Employee Relations Board power to issue determinations and orders it deems necessary consistent with and pursuant to the policies of the Meyers Milias Brown Act. The Public Employment Relations Board has long recognized that make whole relief serves the dual purposes of compensating employees for harm caused by an unfair practice and deterring future violations. Because the Employee Relations Board interpretation of its remedial authority was not clearly erroneous, the court deferred to it.
The court next confirmed that make whole relief constitutes an appropriate and customary remedy for effects bargaining violations. Effects bargaining stands on equal footing with decision bargaining. Both protect the principle of bilateralism that forms the centerpiece of the Meyers Milias Brown Act. The usual remedy directs the employer to bargain over effects and awards limited back pay, understood to encompass all forms of economic loss including reduced pension and medical benefits, until the parties reach agreement or impasse. The Employee Relations Board remedy in this case tracked that established framework. The make whole obligation terminated upon completion of the bargaining process. The court distinguished the earlier decision in American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees v. City of Los Angeles, 109 Cal. App. 5th 179 (2025), which held that employees possessed no vested contractual right to continued reciprocity. Absence of a vested right does not eliminate the distinct statutory right under the Meyers Milias Brown Act to bargain the effects of terminating reciprocity and to receive interim relief that restores the parties as nearly as practicable to the position they occupied when the bargaining duty arose.
This distinction is critical for bargaining rights over pension changes. Public employers frequently retain the unilateral right to alter retirement plan design, contribution rates, or reciprocal arrangements so long as those changes do not impair vested contractual rights. The Court of Appeal made clear that the absence of a vested right does not extinguish the concurrent duty under the Meyers Milias Brown Act to meet and confer over the effects of such changes on represented employees. Pension calculations, service credit recognition, disability retirement eligibility, and retiree medical subsidies all fall within the scope of effects bargaining when a nonnegotiable decision foreseeably impacts them. The make whole remedy, which can include the difference between the pension benefits employees would have received and the benefits they actually received, remains available until the employer satisfies that bargaining obligation. Because the Court of Appeal grounded its analysis in the policies of the Meyers Milias Brown Act rather than in unique features of the Los Angeles Employee Relations Ordinance, the reasoning applies with equal force to every public agency and exclusive representative subject to the Act.
The court found no separation of powers violation. The remedy did not compel the City Council to enact or rescind legislation. It merely maintained the economic status quo on a temporary basis until the City satisfied its statutory bargaining obligation. Nor was the cease and desist directive vague or overbroad. The order identified the clear category of post 2013 Administrative Code provisions governing treatment of Water and Power Employees Retirement Plan service for employees moving into Los Angeles City Employees Retirement System covered positions. Read in light of the Board findings identifying the specific effects subjects, the order provided sufficient notice of the conduct enjoined.
Finally, the court upheld the attorney fee award under Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5. The Coalition was the successful party because it achieved the core objectives of securing an effects bargaining order and make whole relief. The litigation enforced an important public right, namely compliance with the duty to bargain under the Meyers Milias Brown Act, and conferred a significant benefit on a large class of City employees and on other bargaining units that may confront similar unilateral changes. The Coalition is likewise entitled to its reasonable attorney fees and costs on appeal.
State-wide Impacts
Although the Employee Relations Board exercises jurisdiction only within the City of Los Angeles, a Court of Appeal decision that construes the Meyers Milias Brown Act itself benefits all public employee organizations operating under that statute. The Public Employment Relations Board and reviewing courts consistently look to appellate interpretations of the Act when resolving effects bargaining disputes. This decision reinforces that pension related impacts remain fully subject to effects bargaining even when the underlying decision to change a retirement system is nonnegotiable. It further confirms that make whole relief measured by the difference in pension benefits is an ordinary and available remedy designed both to compensate employees and to restore the parties to a more balanced bargaining position. Unions throughout California therefore gain a clearer statement of the rights their members hold when employers alter reciprocal service credit arrangements, contribution formulas, or related retirement features without first addressing the foreseeable effects.
Public employee unions and their members should take careful note of the temporal limits the court endorsed. Make whole relief is not permanent restoration of reciprocity. It functions as a temporary bridge that preserves bargaining leverage and compensates for delay caused by the employer unlawful refusal. Associations therefore should remember to request effects bargaining promptly when management announces nonnegotiable changes that will foreseeably affect retirement service credit, disability benefits, leave rights, or transfer opportunities. Failure to request bargaining or to bargain in good faith can terminate the make whole period. Conversely, employers that ignore the duty face the prospect of years of retroactive liability measured from the date employees first experience harm.
The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment and the attorney fees orders. Although the opinion is not certified for publication, its careful synthesis of Employee Relations Board authority, Public Employment Relations Board remedial doctrine, and the policies of the Meyers Milias Brown Act will inform future disputes involving effects bargaining over pension and benefit changes throughout California.
Conclusion
Where management retains unilateral authority to alter certain arrangements, associations should prepare written demands for effects bargaining and document the economic consequences that will flow from any suspension. The make whole remedy affirmed in this case supplies a potent tool for restoring balance when that duty is ignored.
