In Boling v. Public Employment Relations Board, the Supreme Court holds that San Diego’s mayor needed to meet and confer with a municipal employees’ union under the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act before supporting a successful 2012 citizens’ initiative to reform the employees’ pension system. Expressly noting it was not deciding “the merits of pension reform or any particular pension reform policy” (that could come in later cases), the court’s opinion by Justice Carol Corrigan defers to a Public Employment Relations Board decision that a meet and confer was required.
The court concludes that, although “the application of law to undisputed facts ordinarily presents a legal question that is reviewed de novo,” statutory law provides a different rule for the Board — “when the matter falls within PERB’s area of expertise, the deferential standard . . . applies to its legal determinations even if based on undisputed facts.”
The mayor’s duty to meet and confer was triggered because, even though his support was for a citizens’ initiative and not one placed on the ballot by the City, he “pursued pension reform as a matter of policy while acting as the city’s chief executive officer.”
The court leaves it to the Court of Appeal on remand to determine the proper remedy for the mayor’s violation. The Board said only a court could invalidate the initiative election, and instead ordered a make-whole remedy based on compensation lost by employees because of the initiative.
First District, Division Two, Justice Marla Miller is the pro tem on the case.
The court reverses the Fourth District, Division One, Court of Appeal.
