Oral Argument Set in Two Major Cases

IAFF Local 188 v. PERB (1st DCA Case No. A114959)

This is the appeal of PERB’s decision in City of Richmond (2004) PERB Decision No. 1720-M. In that case, PERB held that a decision to layoff employees is not within the scope of representation under the MMBA. IAFF is arguing that layoffs should be negotiable where there is an impact on safety and workload.

Oral argument is scheduled before the First District Court of Appeal for March 10, 2009, at 9:00 am.

Sonoma County v. Superior Court (1st DCA Case No. 122450)

The issue in this case is whether SB 440—which mandates interest arbitration for firefighters and police officers—is constitutional under County of Riverside v. Superior Court (2003) 30 Cal.4th 278 (Riverside). In Riverside, the California Supreme Court struck down SB 402 which required interest arbitration for firefighters and police officers and made any arbitration decision binding on the public entity. The Legislature responded by enacting SB 440, which makes any decision binding on the public entity unless the governing body of the public entity unanimously rejects the decision. Cities and Counties throughout California have asserted that SB 440 suffers from the same defects as its predecessor. The unions assert that the statutory scheme now passes muster with the legislative amendments.

Oral argument is scheduled before the First District Court of Appeal for March 12, 2009, at 1:30 pm.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.