San Francisco Fire Fighters, Local 798, Intern. Ass'n of Fire Fighters, AFL-CIO v. Board of Sup'rs of City and County of San Francisco, AFL-CI
| Decision Date | 14 December 1977 |
| Docket Number | P,AFL-CI |
| Citation | 142 Cal.Rptr. 575,75 Cal.App.3d 807 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | , 97 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2265 SAN FRANCISCO FIRE FIGHTERS, LOCAL 798, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FIRE FIGHTERS,laintiff and Appellant, v. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF the CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO et al., Defendants and Respondents. The PEOPLE ex rel. George EVANKOVICH et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, Defendant and Respondent. Civ. 38823, 40705. |
Davis, Cowell & Bowe, Philip Paul Bowe, Duane W. Reno, San Francisco, for plaintiff/appellant S. F. Fire Fighters, Local 798.
Evelle J. Younger, Atty. Gen., Clayton P. Roche, Deputy Atty. Gen., San Francisco, Neyhart & Anderson, John L. Anderson, Jerome M. Garchik, San Francisco, Brundage, Beeson & Pappy, Stephen H. Naiman, Los Angeles, for plaintiff/appellant The People ex rel. Evankovich.
Thomas M. O'Connor, City Atty., George E. Baglin, Burk E. Delventhal, Deputy City Attys., San Francisco, for defendants/respondents.
These two actions were separately commenced in the superior court for the purpose of obtaining judicial declarations that an election, by which the voters of the City and County of San Francisco (hereafter "City") purported to amend the City's charter, was void and without legal effect. In proceedings of the nature of general demurrers to the complaints, the superior court in each action concluded that no cause of action had been, or could be, stated, and accordingly entered judgments of dismissal.
The plaintiffs of the respective actions have appealed from the judgments. Since the issues are substantially the same we have consolidated the two appeals for hearing and determination.
Certain long-established basic principles are apposite to our consideration of the appeals.
An "election must be held valid unless plainly illegal." (Rideout v. City of Los Angeles, 185 Cal. 426, 430, 197 P. 74, 75; see also In re East Bay etc. Water Bonds of 1925, 196 Cal. 725, 744, 239 P. 38; People v. Prewett, 124 Cal. 7, 10, 56 P. 619; Willburn v. Wixson, 37 Cal.App.3d 730, 736, 112 Cal.Rptr. 620; Menlo Park City School Dist. v. Tormey, 218 Cal.App.2d 76, 80, 32 Cal.Rptr. 82.)
"The courts are reluctant to defeat a fair expression of popular will in an election and will not do so unless required by the plain mandate of the law." (Veterans' Finance Com. of 1943 v. Betts, 55 Cal.2d 397, 401, 11 Cal.Rptr. 103, 105, 359 P.2d 471, 473; City of Coronado v. San Diego Unified Port Dist., 227 Cal.App.2d 455, 468, 38 Cal.Rptr. 834.)
"It is the general rule that any errors or defects claimed to exist in a notice of election will not invalidate the election unless there is some showing that the electors were in fact misled by such defects." (Veterans' Finance Com. of 1943 v. Betts, supra, 55 Cal.2d 397, 401, 111 Cal.Rptr. 103, 105, 359 P.2d 471, 473.)
It is firmly held that an election will not be set aside because the officials in control of it "have failed to strictly comply with the law, where it appears that no harm was done thereby, . . ." (Hayes v. Kirkwood, 136 Cal. 396, 402, 69 P. 30, 32; see also In re East Bay etc. Water Bonds of 1925, supra, 196 Cal. 725, 744, 239 P. 38; Kenworthy v. Mast, 141 Cal. 268, 271, 74 P. 841; Willburn v. Wixson, supra, 37 Cal.App.3d 730, 736-737, 112 Cal.Rptr. 620; Dennen v. Jastro, 23 Cal.App. 264, 267, 137 P. 1069.)
And "every reasonable presumption and interpretation is to be indulged in favor of the right of the people to exercise the elective process." (Hedlund v. Davis, 47 Cal.2d 75, 81, 301 P.2d 843, 847.)
From the complaints, and from such public records as the superior court was asked to judicially notice, the following factual context appears.
In August 1975, plaintiff San Francisco Fire Fighters, Local 798, International Association of Fire Fighters, AFL-CIO called an illegal strike 1 of its fire fighter members employed by the City. The strike was joined by others, including the uniformed members, generally, of the City's police department.
Pursuant to the state's Constitution, article XI, section 3 (see fn. 4, post ), and Government Code section 34459 which implements that constitutional provision, 2 the City's governing body, its board of supervisors, on its own motion, thereafter submitted proposals for amendment of the City's charter to its electors at an election to be held November 4, 1975. The proposals were designated ballot propositions B, O, P and Q.
Proposition B would repeal the City's charter section 8.403, which related to certain of the City's "craft" wage and salary setting procedures.
Proposition O would add section 8.345 to the City's charter. It provided for the dismissal of fire fighters and policemen who strike.
Proposition P would amend section 8.405 of the charter to provide that the City's fire fighters' and policemen's wages shall equal the average paid for similar services by other California cities with populations of 350,000 or more.
Proposition Q would amend the City's charter section 8.452 by limiting a fire fighter's continuous working period to 14 hours.
The four propositions were adopted by the City's voters at the November 4, 1975, election. It is as to those charter amendments that the instant actions' plaintiffs (hereafter, for convenience, the Unions) seek to have the election declared void and of no legal effect.
I. The first issue presented for our consideration is phrased in this manner: "Whether a cause of action was stated by the allegations of the complaint(s) that the Board of Supervisors failed to comply with the procedural requirements of Sections 3504.5 and 3505 of the Government Code prior to submitting to the electorate proposed amendments to the San Francisco Charter which change wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of municipal employment."
Sections 3504.5 and 3505 are part of the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act which is codified as part 7, division 4, chapter 10 (entitled "Local Public Employee Organizations") and as sections 3500-3510, of the Government Code.
It provides, inter alia, that "public employees shall have the right to form, join, and participate in the activities of employee organizations of their own choosing for the purpose of representation on all matters of employer-employee relations." (Gov.Code, § 3502.) It also requires that the public employer "shall give reasonable written notice to (the) employee organization affected of any ordinance, rule, resolution, or regulation directly relating to matters" with the employee organization's scope of representation, and give the "employee organization the opportunity to meet with" representatives of the public employer. (Gov.Code, § 3504.5.) It then provides that such public employer representatives and the employee organization "shall meet and confer in good faith" in respect of such matters. (Gov.Code, § 3505.) (The emphasis of this paragraph has been supplied by us.)
It is now firmly held that the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act is binding, not only on "general law" cities, but also on "charter" cities such as the City of San Francisco.
But the Unions contend that the City's charter amendment election was void by reason of the board of supervisors' failure to "give reasonable written notice" to, and "meet and confer in good faith" with, the Unions as required by the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act, in relation to the proposed charter amendments. 3
We find the contention invalid, and for the several following reasons.
At the threshold of our immediate inquiry it is proper to note that the City's electorate had the absolute and untrammelled right to legislate, by way of amendment to the City's charter by popular vote, in respect of the subject matter of propositions B, O, P and Q. The Unions make no contrary contention; nor do they argue that the state, or the Legislature, has in any way preempted such matters. Indeed, they, or at least some of them, expressly agree that such questions are "a proper subject for local option."
This right of the City has its roots in the state's Constitution, article XI, section 5, subdivision (b), which provides:
"It shall be competent in all city charters to provide, in addition to those provisions allowable by this Constitution, and by the laws of the State for: (1) the constitution, regulation, and government of the city police force (2) subgovernment in all or part of a city (3) conduct of city elections and (4) plenary authority is hereby granted, subject only to the restrictions of this article, to provide therein or by amendment thereto, the manner in which, the method by which, the times at which, and the terms for which the several municipal officers and employees whose compensation is paid by the city shall be elected or appointed, and for their removal, and for their compensation, and for the number of deputies, clerks and other employees that each shall have, and for the compensation, method of appointment, qualifications, tenure of office and removal of such deputies, clerks and other employees." (Emphasis added.)
It is worthy of emphasis here, for the constitutional authority is so emphatic, that the City's right to so amend its charter is "plenary," i. e., ) (Sacramento v. Industrial Acc. Com., 74 Cal.App. 386, 395, 240 P. 792), and "full, entire, complete, absolute, perfect, unqualified" (32A Words and Phrases (1956) Plenary p. 329; Black's Law Dict. (4th rev. ed. 1968) p. 1313, col. 2.)
The power to so amend the City's charter is confided by the state's Constitution to the City's voters, who may do so "by majority vote of its electors voting on the question." (Cal.Const., art. XI, § 3, subd. (a).)
The means provided by the state's Constitution for calling such a charter amendment election is a proposal therefor by the city's governing body, or by an initiative petition of its electors....
To continue reading
Request your trial