Court Rejects Interest Arbitration for Law Enforcement and Firefighters

July 12, 2009 by Beeson Tayer & Bodine

A California Court has again rejected the state legislature’s desire to compel interest arbitration of deadlocked MOU negotiations between municipal employers and their law enforcement and firefighter employee organizations.

Under the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act when negotiations reach an impasse, the public agency is permitted to implement its last, best, and final offer.

In 2001, the California Legislature enacted Senate Bill 402 which provided for compulsory binding arbitration upon impasse between law enforcement/firefighter unions and local agencies. But in 2003 the California Supreme Court held that SB 402 violated the California State Constitution.

In County of Riverside v Superior Court, the Court ruled SB 402 violated the California Constitution by depriving public agencies of their constitutional autonomy which includes authority to determine the wages of their employees. The Court also held SB 402 unconstitutional because “the Legislature ha[d] impermissibly delegated to a private body—the arbitration panel—the power to interfere with county money (by potentially requiring the county to pay higher salaries than it chooses) and to perform municipal functions (determining compensation for county employees).”

The California Legislature responded by adopting Senate Bill 440 which amended the original statute and gave local governing body the power to reject the arbitrator’s decision through a unanimous vote. But a California Court of Appeals has now ruled SB 440 to also be unconstitutional. In County of Sonoma v. Superior Court, 173 Cal.App.4th 322 (2009), the Court ruled the unanimous vote requirement did not resolve the conflict and still divested the local government of its constitutional authority and autonomy.

The material on this website is provided by Beeson, Tayer & Bodine for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Readers should consult with their own legal counsel before acting on any of the information presented. Some of the articles are updated periodically, and are marked with the date of the last update. Again, readers should consult with their own legal counsel for the most current information and to obtain professional advice before acting on any of the information presented.