## Facts

- The Legislature enacted Senate Bill 402 (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 1299–1299.9), requiring specified local agencies, including counties, to submit certain economic issues in negotiations with firefighter and law-enforcement unions to binding interest arbitration when statutory conditions were met.
- Riverside County and the Riverside Sheriff’s Association negotiated over compensation for probation department employees and reached an impasse.
- The Association demanded binding arbitration under the statute; the County refused, asserting the statute violated the California Constitution.
- The Association petitioned to compel arbitration; the superior court ordered arbitration, concluding the law addressed statewide concerns (avoiding disruption of public safety services).
- The Court of Appeal issued a writ directing the superior court to vacate the arbitration order and deny the motion to compel, concluding the statute violated Cal. Const. art. XI, §§ 1(b) and 11(a).
- The California Supreme Court granted review.

## Issues

1. Whether mandatory binding interest arbitration of county employee compensation violates Cal. Const. art. XI, § 1(b), which provides that a county’s governing body “shall provide for” employee compensation.
2. Whether mandatory binding interest arbitration violates Cal. Const. art. XI, § 11(a) by delegating to private arbitrators power over county money and municipal functions.

## Decision

- The California Supreme Court held the statute unconstitutional as applied to counties.
- The Court ruled the statute violates article XI, section 1(b) because it compels counties to accept binding compensation determinations made by arbitrators rather than the county governing body.
- The Court also ruled the statute violates article XI, section 11(a) because it delegates to private arbitrators the power to control county financial affairs and perform a core municipal function (setting compensation).
- The Court affirmed the Court of Appeal’s judgment directing the superior court to set aside its order compelling arbitration and to deny the motion to compel.

## Legal Principles

- Cal. Const. art. XI, § 1(b) assigns counties, through their governing bodies, the responsibility to provide for employee compensation; the Legislature may not require counties to transfer final compensation-setting authority to arbitrators.
- Cal. Const. art. XI, § 11(a) prohibits legislative delegation to private persons or bodies of power to interfere with county money or perform municipal functions; binding arbitrators’ control over compensation falls within this prohibition when imposed by statute.
- The constitutional defect turns on compulsion: a county may voluntarily agree to arbitrate compensation issues, but the Legislature cannot mandate binding interest arbitration for counties.
- A generalized claim of statewide concern cannot override explicit constitutional allocations and prohibitions governing county authority and nondelegation.

## Conclusion

The court invalidated mandatory binding interest arbitration for county compensation disputes because the California Constitution reserves compensation-setting to county governing bodies and forbids compelled delegation of that function and related fiscal control to private arbitrators.


County of Riverside v. Superior Court, 30 Cal. 4th 278 (Cal. 2003)