City & County of San Francisco v. United Ass'n of Journeymen & Apprentices of the Plumbing & Pipefitting Industry of the United States & Canada

I respectfully dissent. In County Sanitation Dist. No. 2 v. Los Angeles County Employees Assn. (1985) 38 Cal.3d 564 [ 214 Cal.Rptr. 424 , 699 P.2d 835 ], my colleagues held that, except in limited cases presenting an “imminent threat” to public health or safety, public employees now have a right to strike in this state. I dissented, observing that this holding was contrary to the federal rule and to the vast majority of cases in other states; indeed, until County Sanitation, it was well established in California that all public strikes were illegal. (Id. at p. 610 [dis. opn.].) The fact that at least nine California appellate decisions (cited in my dissent) had so ruled, and that no statutes were enacted to change that rule, indicated to me a legislative acquiescence therein. The majority held otherwise.

Now the majority holds that even if a strike was unlawful (posing the requisite “imminent threat” to public health or safety), affected public agencies are limited to their injunctive or administrative remedies and may not sue to recover the financial losses proximately caused by the strikers’ *820 unlawful conduct. This decision is again contrary to accepted California law. (See…

In County Sanitation Dist. No. 2 v. Los Angeles County Employees Assn. (1985) 38 Cal.3d 564 [ 214 Cal. Rptr. 424 , 699 P.2d 835 ], certiorari denied, ___ U.S. ___ [ 88 L.Ed.2d 359 ], (hereafter County Sanitation ), we held that a public employees' strike is illegal only if it poses an imminent threat to public health or safety. (P. 592.) Our opinion specifically reserved the question whether an employer could recover damages in tort for an illegal strike. ( Id., at p. 592, fn. 40.) [1] (1) We address that question today, and conclude that, until the Legislature provides otherwise, the maintenance of an illegal strike is not a tort for which damages may be recovered. We disapprove Pasadena Unified Sch. Dist. v. Pasadena Federation of Teachers (1977) 72 Cal. App.3d 100 [ 140 Cal. Rptr. 41 ] (hereafter Pasadena ), the only decision in the country to uphold a damage award in such a setting, and the decision on which the trial court relied in awarding $4,080,000 in damages to the City of San Francisco in the present case.

On March 11, 1976, defendant, Local 38 of the United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of…

In County Sanitation Dist. No. 2 v. Los Angeles County Employees Assn. (1985) 38 Cal.3d 564 [ 214 Cal.Rptr. 424 , 699 P.2d 835 ], certiorari denied, — U.S. — [ 88 L.Ed.2d 359 ], (hereafter County Sanitation), we held that a public employees’ strike is illegal only if it poses an imminent threat to public health or safety. (P. 592.) Our opinion specifically reserved the question whether an employer could recover damages *812 in tort for an illegal strike. (Id., at p. 592, fn. 40.) 1 We address that question today, and conclude that, until the Legislature provides otherwise, the maintenance of an illegal strike is not a tort for which damages may be recovered. We disapprove Pasadena Unified Sch. Dist. v. Pasadena Federation of Teachers (1977) 72 Cal.App.3d 100 [ 140 Cal.Rptr. 41 ] (hereafter Pasadena), the only decision in the country to uphold a damage award in such a setting, and the decision on which the trial court relied in awarding $4,080,000 in damages to the City of San Francisco in the present case.

On March 11, 1976, defendant, Local 38 of the United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and…