Active Litigation

Proposition B update!

After years of litigation, the DCAA, MEA and other two City unions were successful in Proposition B being invalidated by a unanimous California Supreme Court and being removed from the City Charter following the issuance of a writ of quo warranto.

As a result, all current DCAs were retroactively placed in the SDCERs retirement system. Their prior years of service were purchased using their current SPSP-H account funds. If there was a shortfall in the amount needed to buy these years of service, the City made up the difference and paid a 7% penalty directly to those DCAs. Now all current and newly hired DCAs are automatically enrolled in the SDCERs retirement system. All years of service count towards retirement or as reciprocal years of service if the DCAs continue their careers in other eligible agencies. (Subject to the same reciprocity rules that apply to all SDCERs members).

Former DCAs will have the same option to enroll in SDCERs and purchase their years of service with the City. Former DCAs that cashed out their SPSP-H accounts will be required to repay the value of that account on the day they left employment with the City if they wish to purchase these years of service. The same remedy regarding any shortfall will apply to them in the same manner as current DCAs. Upon admission to SDCERs and the purchase of these year of service, former DCAs can also establish reciprocity with qualifying agencies. If they do not choose to enroll in SDCERs and purchase their years of service, then there will be no impact for these former DCAs. All former DCAs are encouraged to share their current contact information with the City at – https://sandiego.seamlessdocs.com/f/PropBaddress.

June 2019 – see the verified complaint in Quo Warranto.

March 2019 – see the recent decision on Prob B. The Fourth District Decision.

January 2019 – see the current filings in the Prop B litigation. Supreme Court Decision, DCAA Supp Opening Brief, City of San Diego Answer, Boiling et al supplemental brief, SEIU request for amicus, Operating Engineers request for amicus, and League of California Cities request for amicus.

September 2016 – see current filings in the Prop B litigation. League of Cities Brief , PERB Request for Oral Argument , and Petition for request for oral argument.

July 2016 – see current filings in the Prop B litigation. Boiling Writ , City Opening Brief , Brief of Real Parties – Unions -City , and Brief of Real Parties – City – Boling .

May 2016 – Letter from Unions to Mayor and Council – Joint Request for Cooperative Action Related to Prop B. Click here to read the Letter.

January 2016 : City of San Diego has filed a Writ of Extraordinary Relief – see Part I here and Part II here. (the file was too large for one attachment).

Full PERB Board Decision issued on December 29, 2015 – upholding lower decision on Prop B. See the full ruling here.

BREAKING NEWS: CITY LOSES UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES CASE

PROPOSITION B DECLARED ILLEGAL

PERB DECISION HERE: PERB Decision

RULING ON DCAA’S UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES CHARGE EXPECTED SOON

Whether City Officials Violated State Law at Issue

Rather than meet and confer with the DCAA and its sister unions regarding pension reform, Mayor Jerry Sanders bypassed state law and proceeded to spearhead an initiative amending the City Charter. On June 5, 2012, voters overwhelmingly passed the Mayor’s initiative, Proposition B. Proposition B freezes all City salaries for six years and mandates that all new City hires, except for police officers, be placed in a 401(k) defined contribution plan, rather than the City’s current defined benefit contribution plan. It also requires that current City employees make “substantially equal” contributions towards their pension plan.

Before the Mayor’s initiative was placed on the ballot, the DCAA demanded that the Mayor meet and confer regarding his new pension plan. The Mayor refused, and the DCAA filed an unfair labor practices charge with the Public Employees Relations Board (“PERB”), and the DCAA’s charge was consolidated with MEA’s and other union’s unfair labor charges.

The City successfully obtained a temporary restraining order (“TRO”) from the San Diego Superior Court, which prevented the MEA PERB charge from proceeding forward to a hearing. In the meantime, PERB held DCAA’s unfair labor charge in abeyance. MEA petitioned the local Court of Appeal to vacate the TRO. On June 19, 2012, the Court of Appeal granted MEA’s petition and ruled that the Superior Court erred in stopping the PERB administrative proceedings before the election. Ultimately, the California Supreme Court denied the City’s petition to review this decision.

In July, the assigned Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) in the PERB case conducted a hearing on the DCAA’s unfair labor charge against the City in Los Angeles. The ALJ denied the City’s post-hearing motion for dismissal and non-suit. The matter is now fully briefed with a ruling on the DCAA’s unfair labor charges expected any day.

PERB PLEADINGS AND RELATED COURT ORDERS

DCAA’S UNFAIR LABOR CHARGE (2-15-12)

PERB COMPLAINT (3-2-12)

CITY’S ANSWER TO PERB COMPLAINT (3-22-12)

CITY’S MTN. TO DISQUALIFY PERB (3-22-12)

CITY’S MEMO RE DISQUALIFICATION (3-22-12)

WORLEY DECLARATION RE DISQUALIFICATION (3-22-12)

ALJ’S DECISION DENYING DISQUALIFICATION (5-19-12)

COURT OF APPEAL’S DECISION (6-19-12)

DCAA’s REQUEST FOR CONSOLIDATION (6-20-12)

ALJ’S LETTER TO CITY RE CONSOLIDATION REQ. (6-22-12)

CITY’S REPLY TO ALJ RE CONSOLIDATION (6-25-12)