Pacifica Firefighters Ass'n v. City of Pacifica

• Decision Date: 24 March 2022
• Docket Number: A161575
• Citation: 76 Cal.App.5th 758,291 Cal.Rptr.3d 736
• Parties: PACIFICA FIREFIGHTERS ASSOCIATION, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. CITY OF PACIFICA, Defendant and Respondent.
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

76 Cal.App.5th 758

291 Cal.Rptr.3d 736

PACIFICA FIREFIGHTERS ASSOCIATION, Plaintiff and Appellant,

v.CITY OF PACIFICA, Defendant and Respondent.

A161575

Court of Appeal, First District, Division 2, California.

Filed March 24, 2022

Attorneys for Appellant: Goyette & Associates, Richard P. Fisher

Attorneys for Respondent: Burke, Williams & Sorensen, Nicholas J. Muscolino, Michelle Marchetta Kenyon, Deepa Sharma, Oakland

Kline, J.^*

In 1988, the voters in the City of Pacifica (City) approved Measure F, which prescribes procedures to be followed in the event of an impasse in labor disputes with the City's firefighters. Under this measure, absent other agreement, the top step salaries of fire captains in the city are to be set at an amount not less than the average for top step salaries of fire captains in five neighboring cities. After an impasse in negotiations occurred in 2019, the Pacifica Firefighters Association (PFFA) sought a writ of mandate and declaratory relief requiring the City to follow Measure F. The trial court denied the petition, finding Measure F preempted by state law and an unlawful delegation of power. We affirm.

BACKGROUND

Measure F

Measure F, an ordinance entitled "Firefighter Dispute Resolution Process Impasse Resolution Procedures: Minimum Wages and Benefits For Firefighters," was adopted by the City's voters in 1988. The stated purpose of the ordinance is "to resolve an impasse in wage and benefit negotiations should they occur" between representatives of the City and of the recognized firefighter organization "and to thereafter adopt minimum salary and benefits for firefighters."

Pursuant to Measure F, if representatives of the City and/or the firefighters declare an impasse in negotiations over "wages, hours, benefits, and working conditions," the parties must, within five days, see the assistance of a mediator "selected by the division of Conciliation of the Department of Industrial Relations of the State of California." If no agreement has been reached after 15 days of mediation, either party may request the state conciliation service to name a panel of seven factfinders, from which one neutral factfinder is selected by the parties through an "alternate striking process"; that neutral factfinder joins one named by the City and one named by the firefighters to form a three-member factfinding board.

The "Factfinding Board" (Board) must "undertake an investigation, conduct hearings and receive evidence from City and firefighter representatives on all outstanding issues in dispute" and then make a recommendation on each disputed issue. Section 2(d) of Measure F provides: "The recommendations shall not be binding. On the issue of salaries and benefits, the recommendations of the Board shall be in conformity with the prevailing wage criteria established in Section 3 of this ordinance." After a 15-day period during which the parties must resume negotiations, the Board's findings and recommendations on any issues remaining in dispute "shall be submitted to the City Council for its consideration and implementation."

Section 2(e) of Measure F provides: "The City Council shall carefully consider all the recommendations of the Factfinding Board. It is the intention of this ordinance that the recommendations of the Factfinding Board should be adopted by the City Council unless said recommendations are not supported by the findings of the Board or the findings are not supported by the preponderance of evidence received by the Board. In the event the City Council does not adopt the recommendations of the Factfinding Board on any issue, the City Council shall then make its own written findings on such issues. Such findings must be supported by the preponderance of evidence received by the Factfinding Board. On the subject of wages and benefits, the City Council shall follow and apply the prevailing wage and benefit criteria set forth in Sections 3(a) and 3(b) of this ordinance."

Pursuant to section 3(a) of Measure F, "Unless otherwise agreed by City and firefighter representatives following the adoption of this ordinance, the top step salaries of Fire Captains in the City of Pacifica shall be fixed retroactively to July 1 of each fiscal year at an amount which is not less than the average for top step salaries for Fire Captains in the Cities of South San Francisco, Daly City, San Mateo, San Bruno and Redwood City. Salaries for top step Firefighter-Engineers shall be adjusted to a rate of 15.3% below the salary for top step Fire Captains. The percentage rated step increases below the top step Fire Captain and the top step Firefighter-Engineer shall be increased proportionately to the increases in the top steps for said classifications."

Section 3(b) of Measure F states that employer costs for medical insurance for fire captains, firefighter-engineers and their dependents, and employer costs for vacations, holidays, educational incentives, sick leave, non-safety related uniform costs and retirement benefits, "shall be totaled and divided by the number of actual employees in the represented unit. Said costs shall then be compared to and maintained at not less than the employer costs and employer incurred costs of such benefits for Firefighters, Fire Engineers and Fire Captains actually employed in the cities identified in Section 3(a) of this ordinance. It is the intention of this ordinance that, unless otherwise agreed by City and firefighter representatives, that the City Council should follow the recommendations of the Factfinding Board in allocating the costs prescribed by this subsection unless said findings are not supported by a preponderance of the evidence received by the Board."

Meyers-Milias-Brown Act

"In general, labor relations between local government employers and employees are regulated by the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act (MMBA), Government Code section 3500 et seq." ( Service Employees Internat. Union v. Superior Court (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 1390, 1394, 108 Cal.Rptr.2d 505.) "[T]he MMBA has two purposes: (1) to promote full communication between public employers and employees; (2) to improve personnel management and employer-employee relations within the various public agencies. Those purposes are to be achieved by establishing methods for resolving disputes over employment conditions and for recognizing the right of public employees to organize and be represented by employee organizations. Section 3500 states, however: ‘Nothing contained herein shall be deemed to supersede the provisions of existing state law and the charters, ordinances, and rules of local public agencies which establish and regulate a merit or civil service system or which provide for other methods of administering employer-employee relations....’ " ( Los Angeles County Civil Service Com. v. Superior Court (1978) 23 Cal.3d 55, 62, 151 Cal.Rptr. 547, 588 P.2d 249 ; Gov. Code, § 3500.)¹

The MMBA requires a public employer to meet and confer in good faith with the recognized employee organization on wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment ( § 3505 ), and provides procedures to be followed if the parties fail to reach agreement. The parties may "together" agree upon the appointment of a mediator mutually agreeable to both. ( § 3505.2.) If there is no mediation, or if mediation is not successful, the employee organization may request submission of the parties’ differences to a "factfinding panel" comprised of three members, one selected by each of the parties and a third selected by the Public Employment Relations Board. ( § 3505.4, subd. (a).) The factfinding panel must meet with the parties and "may make inquiries and investigations, hold hearings, and take any other steps it deems appropriate." ( § 3505.4, subd. (c).)

The panel is required to "consider, weigh, and be guided by" eight enumerated criteria: (1) "State and federal laws that are applicable to the employer"; (2) "Local rules, regulations, or ordinances"; (3) "Stipulations of the parties"; (4) "The interests and welfare of the public and the financial ability of the public agency"; (5) "Comparison of the wages, hours, and conditions of employment of the employees involved in the factfinding proceeding with the wages, hours, and conditions of employment of other employees performing similar services in comparable public agencies" (6) "The consumer price index for goods and services, commonly known as the cost of living"; (7) "The overall compensation presently received by the employees, including direct wage compensation, vacations, holidays, and other excused time, insurance and pensions, medical and hospitalization benefits, the continuity and stability of employment, and all other benefits received"; and (8) "Any other facts ... which are normally or traditionally taken into consideration in making the findings and recommendations." ( § 3505.4, subd. (d).)

The panel must "make findings of fact and recommend terms of settlement," which must be submitted in writing to the parties and, subsequent to their receipt, made available to the public." ( § 3505.5, subd. (a).) The panel's findings and recommendations "shall be advisory only." (Ibid. ) As relevant here, "[a]fter any applicable mediation and factfinding procedures have been exhausted," the public employer "may, after holding a public hearing regarding the impasse, implement its last, best, and final offer." ( § 3505.7.)

This Case

According to the parties’ stipulated facts, the City (as of January 2020) employed six fire captains and 12 firefighters, including three vacant firefighter positions expected to be filled beginning January 27, 2020. In October 2018, the parties began negotiations for a new contract to replace the "Memorandum of Understanding" that was to expire at the end of that year. The City initially offered a two percent salary increase per year for three years, for all PFFA bargaining unit members. On February 15, 2019, the City increased its offer to a four percent salary increase in...