Arbitration
San Francisco Charter Bars At-Will Job Protections From Interest Arbitration
Updated
In City and County of San Francisco v. Public Employment Relations Board, the First District Court of Appeal held that the City’s exempt attorneys’ at-will status is not eligible for binding interest arbitration under the San Francisco Charter. Because two union proposals would have altered that status, the court found them not arbitrable and vacated the Public Employment Relations Board’s contrary decision, along with its finding that the City bargained in bad faith.
Background
The Municipal Attorneys Association of San Francisco represents roughly 500 City attorneys. Under the Charter, those attorneys are exempt employees who serve at the pleasure of the appointing authority and may be terminated without cause.
During recent negotiations, the union made two proposals that would have changed that arrangement. One required “just cause” and progressive discipline for any discharge; the other required layoffs in order of seniority.
The City rejected both, taking the position that proposals altering its attorneys’ at-will status were not eligible for the binding interest arbitration available under the Charter’s impasse resolution procedures. The union filed an unfair practice charge.
The Public Employment Relations Board ruled for the union, holding that the proposals were arbitrable and that the City engaged in bad faith bargaining by refusing to submit them. The City petitioned for a writ of review, and the Court of Appeal issued one.
What the Court Held on Arbitrability
The court explained that, although it defers to the Board on labor-law questions within its jurisdiction, it does not defer on the meaning of the Charter, which is the supreme law of the City and outside the Board’s expertise. The court reviewed the Charter’s text de novo.
Section A8.409-3 carves certain matters out of bargaining “under this part”—those within the Civil Service Commission’s jurisdiction that establish, implement, and regulate the civil service merit system. Reading the Charter as a whole, the court concluded that “part” includes the interest arbitration provisions of section A8.409-4.
The court then found that the attorneys’ at-will status falls within those carved-out matters. Exempt employees remain part of the City’s merit system, and Commission rules treating exempt appointees as serving at the pleasure of the appointing officer are entitled to deference.
The court added that the ballot materials for the arbitration provisions never suggested arbitrators could override the voter-approved at-will status of City attorneys, reinforcing that the proposals were not arbitrable.
Under the San Francisco Charter, the at-will status of the City’s exempt employees is a matter within the Civil Service Commission’s jurisdiction that is carved out of binding interest arbitration. Union proposals to require just cause or seniority-based layoffs for those employees are therefore not arbitrable.
What the Court Held on Bad Faith Bargaining
The Board had found bad faith bargaining solely because the City stated, repeatedly and in advance, that the proposals were ineligible for arbitration. Because the court held that the proposals were in fact ineligible, the City’s position was correct, and the bad-faith finding could not stand.
The court vacated the Board’s findings and the remedies tied to them, and held the City entitled to its costs on appeal.
What This Means for You
This decision clarifies that the San Francisco Charter excludes the at-will status of the City’s exempt employees from binding interest arbitration, so proposals to add just-cause or seniority protections for them are not arbitrable. It touches public-sector labor disputes under the Charter’s impasse resolution procedures and the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act.
I write these summaries as general information about developments in California employment law. They are not legal advice and don’t create a mediator–client relationship. For guidance on a specific matter, consult a qualified attorney.