For more than a decade, firefighters in the Compton Fire Department in California had routinely been permitted to engage in morning fitness workouts at their stations, subject to supervisory approval. The practice was well established and viewed as integral to maintaining the mandatory fitness levels required for firefighting duties. By late 2023, however, relations between the department’s management and Compton Firefighters, IAFF Local 2216, had become strained.
The Local had filed multiple unfair labor practice charges over departmental policies, including staffing, equipment, and management practices. The Local held two formal votes of no confidence in Fire Chief Ronerick Simpson. The first vote, held in December of 2022, was evenly split, resulting in no action. But on November 7, 2023, a second vote resulted in a majority finding no confidence in Simpson. The Local then sent a letter to the City informing it of the results of the vote and urging “the City Manager and the City Council to evaluate the current leadership of the fire department and [Chief Simpson’s] fit for the future of the Compton Fire Department.”
On November 13, 2023, only days after the second vote, Simpson issued an all-hands e-mail declaring “Effective immediately, there will be no physical fitness workouts during business hours,” and directed that firefighters remain in uniform while on duty. That same day, he carried out his first formal inspection of all stations since his appointment in 2017.
The Local filed an unfair labor practice charge alleging retaliation for protected activity and an unlawful unilateral change in working conditions under the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act (MMBA). The MMBA, codified at Government Code § 3500 et seq., guarantees California local government employees the right to form, join, and participate in employee organizations, prohibits retaliation for the exercise of those rights, and requires employers to bargain in good faith before changing established working conditions.
After the hearing, an ALJ found that Simpson’s directive was retaliatory and therefore a violation of the MMBA under the test established in Novato Unified School District (PERB Decision No. 210 (1982)). Under Novato, a union alleging retaliation must show that: (1) employees engaged in protected activity; (2) the employer knew of that activity; (3) the employer took adverse action; and (4) the protected activity was a substantial or motivating cause of the adverse action. Applying that framework, the ALJ found that the Local’s no-confidence vote and prior unfair labor practice filings were protected, that Simpson was aware of them, and that his workout ban and simultaneous inspection were adverse actions motivated by anti-union animus. The ALJ also found Simpson’s asserted justifications of maintaining professionalism and ensuring availability for emergency calls were pretextual. The ALJ cited the suspicious timing of the ban, the absence of prior discipline or incidents tied to workout periods, and Simpson’s decision to accompany the directive with a station inspection as evidence of retaliatory intent. In addition, the ALJ also found a unilateral-change violation, holding that the directive eliminated an established practice affecting employee health, morale, and readiness without providing the Local advance notice or an opportunity to bargain.
On review, the California PERB affirmed, agreeing that the City’s actions were both retaliatory and a unilateral change in violation of the MMBA. PERB adopted the ALJ’s remedies, ordering the City to rescind the directive, restore the prior policy permitting workouts during duty hours, and make employees whole for any resulting losses with interest. The City was also directed to post and distribute notices acknowledging the violation.
The Local also sought an award of attorney’s fees, arguing that the City’s defense — that the directive did not change the status quo — was frivolous. PERB acknowledged that the City’s position lacked merit but declined to impose sanctions, emphasizing that a party’s claim must be both frivolous and pursued in bad faith to warrant fees. Because the City’s litigation conduct was not found to be dilatory or abusive, PERB denied the request.
Compton Firefighters, IAFF Local 2216 v. City of Compton, PERB Decision No. 2976-M, 50 PERC ¶ 47 (Cal. PERB Aug. 1, 2025).