When the Firefighters' Procedural Bill of Rights Act (Gov't C. section 3250 et seq.) (FFBOR) became effective in 2008, the union representing San Jose's firefighters requested that the City meet and confer over the implementation of the new rights the statute provided for adminsitrative appeals of firefighter discipline.  The City refused on the ground that, as a charter city, it was not obligated to implement the FFBOR. 

Today, in a case that contains a detailed discussion of the history surrounding the Meyers-Milias Brown Act, the FFBOR, and the Public Employment Relations Board, as well as the Home Rule provisions of the California Constitution, the Sixth Appellate District rejected the City's contention.

The Home Rule Doctrine

The California Constitution contains a "home rule" provision, which gives chartered cities the power to "make and enforce all ordinances and regulations in respect to municipal affairs, subject only to [the] restrictions and limitations provided in their several charters ...."  (California Constitution, Article XI, section 5, subd. (a).) However, a well-established exception to the home rule doctrine involves general laws of statewide concern.  Thus, "general laws seeking to accomplish an objective of statewide concern may prevail over conflicting local regulatoins even if they impinge to a limited extent upon some phase of local control."  Baggett v. Gates (1982) 32 Cal. 3d 128, 139; County of Riverside v. SUperior Court (2003) 30 Cal. 4th 278, 287. 

Relying on cases decided under the Public Safety Officers Procedural Bill of Rights Act, Gov't C. 3300 et seq., the Sixth Appellate District was persuaded that the discipline appeal procedures contained in section 3254.5 of the FFBOR apply to charter cities because it addresses a matter of public concern, and simply  establishes "procedural safeguards" for firefighter discipline appeals rather than any substantive standards for firefighter discipline.

The Obligation to Meet and Confer Over Firefighter Discipline Appeal Procedures

The Sixth Appellate District next ruled that the Public Employment Relations Board has exclusive initial jurisdiction over the question of whether the City committed an unfair labor practice by refusing to meet and confer over the additional firefighter discipline appeal procedures that were imposed by the FFBOR. 

In so doing, the court reaffirmed that "the conditions of employment addressed by the FFBOR, including the procedures for a firefighter's administrative appeal of a discipilinary matter, fall within the scope of representation" under the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act.  But, whether the City's refusal to negotiate constituted an unfair labor practice or was justified had to be presented first to the Public Employment Relations Board, not the superior court, for adjudication.