Layoff Decision Not Subject to Bargaining

January 13, 2011 by Beeson Tayer & Bodine

The California Supreme Court has confirmed PERB’s policy that a public employer’s economically motivated layoff decision is not subject to the meetand- confer obligation. The Court also ruled that a PERB decision not to issue complaint on an unfair practice charge is sometimes subject to court review. International Ass’n of Fire Fighters, Local 188 v. PERB (1/24/11).

Facing a budget crisis, the city decided to lay off 18 of its firefighters. The firefighters’ union tried to negotiate with the city to avert the layoffs, but the city refused to bargain over its layoff decision. The union filed a charge with PERB, but PERB refused to issue a complaint. The union then appealed PERB’s decision in superior court. The appeal eventually reached the California Supreme Court.

The Court addressed two issues: (1) When PERB decides not to issue a complaint, is that decision ever subject to judicial review? (2) Is a city’s decision to lay off employees for fiscal reasons a matter that is subject to collective bargaining?

On the first question, the Court concluded that although PERB’s refusal to issue a complaint is generally not subject to judicial review, an exception applies when the appealing party alleges PERB’s refusal is based on a clearly erroneous statutory construction.

On the second question, the Court ruled that when a city, faced with a budget deficit, decides some employees must be laid off as a costsaving measure, the city is not required to meet and confer before making that initial decision. Instead, the city’s duty to bargain extends only to the implementation and effects of the layoff decision, including the number and identity of the employees to be laid off, and the timing of the layoffs.

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.