Supreme Court of California

For purposes of the meet-and-confer requirement of the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act (MMBA), which governs labor-management relations at the local government level, there is a distinction between an employer's fundamental managerial or policy decision and the implementation of that decision. To determine whether an employer's action implementing a fundamental decision is subject to the meet-and-confer requirement, a court should apply the test found in Building Material & Construction Teamsters' Union v. Farrell, 41 Cal.3d 651, 660 (1986).

Appellate Information

• Decided 08/14/2006
• Published 08/14/2006

Judges

• CHIN, J.

Court

• Supreme Court of California

Counsel

• For Appellant:
  
• Lackie & Dammeier, Dieter C. Dammeier and Michael A. Morguess, Upland, for Plaintiff and Appellant., Rains, Lucia & Wilkinson and Alison Berry Wilkinson, Pleasant Hill, for Peace Officers Research Association of California's Legal Defense Fund as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Plaintiff and Appellant.


• For Appellees:
  
• Liebert Cassidy Whitmore, Richard M. Kreisler, Los Angeles, Mark H. Meyerhoff;  Best Best & Krieger, Jeffrey V. Dunn, Sonia R. Carvalho, Irvine and Sandra M. Schwarzmann for Defendants and Respondents., Alan L. Schlosser, Mark Schlosberg, San Francisco;  and Peter Eliasberg, Los Angeles, for American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of Northern California and American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of Southern California as Amici Curiae on behalf of Defendants and Respondents., Jeffrey Kightlinger, Henry Barbosa, Henry Torres, Jr.;   Atkinson, Andelson, Loya, Ruud & Romo, James F. Baca, Warren S. Kinsler, Nate Kowalski and Joshua E. Morrison, Cerritos, for Metropolitan Water District of Southern California as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Defendants and Respondents., Meyers, Nave, Riback, Silver & Wilson, Andrea J. Saltzman and Arthur A. Hartinger, Oakland, for League of California Cities as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Defendants and Respondents.