More than a decade after Palo Alto voters overwhelmingly passed a measure that removed binding arbitration for public safety workers from the city charter, the legal battle between the city and its primary firefighters union continues to wind its way through the court system.

But despite an earlier determination that the city had failed to negotiate with the International Association of Firefighters, Local 1319, before placing the measure on the 2011 ballot, the decision seems unlikely to be reversed. That much was made clear in a September preliminary decision from Santa Clara County Superior Court Judge Cynthia C. Lie, who agreed with the union's assertion that the city unlawfully exercised its authority in placing the measure on the ballot but who declined the union's request that the measure be invalidated.

Barring a change of course, the prelimiary ruling represents a nominal victory but a practical defeat for the union, which prevailed in its arguments that the city acted illegally but which failed to achieve its overarching goal of reinstating binding arbitration — a provision that had been in the city charter since 1978 before the council asked voters to remove it. Lie concluded that the union is the prevailing party in the suit and ordered the city to negotiate with its public safety unions about a possible restoration of the binding arbitration provision. Once that happens, the city is required to consult "in good faith" with all relevant unions that accept the city's invitation to do so.

If the city fails to comply, Lie wrote, it would be required to submit to the binding-arbitration provision. But in a blow to the union, she concluded that any determination about the future of the binding arbitration should be made by the city's elected representatives rather than the court.

"The city, having denied the public safety unions of that consultation before putting Measure D before the voters, should not benefit from that violation of section 3507 unless and until they remedy that violation in good faith," Lie wrote in the Sept. 14 order, referring to a section of the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act, which governs collective bargaining for public employees. "Nothing in this record, however, discloses any reason why that consultation cannot effectively be undertaken now, or why it should be a judge who unwinds the electoral results rather than the voters' elected representatives to the extent the consultation serves the practical purpose Local 1319 expects."

In detailing the city's transgressions, Lie refers to an earlier determination by the Public Employees Relations Board, which in 2014 sided with the firefighters' union and determined that the city had violated state law in the leadup to the 2011 election. But while PERB ordered the city to rescind the resolution that placed Measure D on the ballot, the city appealed that order to the Sixth District Court of Appeal, which concluded that PERB does not have the authority to invalidate the voter-approved measure.

The union then attempted to restore arbitration through quo warranto, a legal action that challenged the authority of a public agency to enact a law. Attorneys for the union argued that because the city violated the collective-bargaining law, the courts should invalidate Measure D, effectively restoring binding arbitration.

On Oct. 29, the union's attorney, Kathleen Mastagni Storm, filed a blistering objection in response to Lie's findings that referred to the order as a "pyrrhic victory" for the union. Storm argued that the court's ruling has left the union "in a worse bargaining position than existed prior to the enactment of Measure D." She also argued that the county had set a bad precedent that "weakens employee organization rights." The only way to prevent the city from enjoying its unlawful privilege, Storm wrote, is to grant the union's request for relief by invalidating Measure D.

"The Decision's remedy is ineffectual because the City has no incentive to meet and confer in good faith with Local 1319 as required by … the Decision. The City has already achieved their goal of passing Measure D by any means necessary, and stripping Local 1319 of its right to binding interest arbitration," Storm wrote.

The city, for its part, has argued that the union's latest attempt to invalidate Measure D should be rejected because it was filed so long after the measure D has been adopted. The union "has yet to proffer any justification sufficient to support its failure to seek leave to sue in a timely fashion," the city's attorneys, Charles Sakai and Eric Della Santa wrote in a March brief.

"As a result of IAFF's delay, its claim has certainly 'become stale.' Furthermore, re-instituting interest arbitration at this point would remove urgent changes needed to address public health concerns or issues such as police reform from the City Council and subject them to the determination of an unelected arbitrator," Sakai and Della Santa wrote.

The city has until Nov. 29 to issue it own comments on Lie's preliminary decision.

The ruling comes at a critical time for the Fire Department, which has lost more than 30 positions in the decade since Measure D passed. Earlier this week, the City Council Finance Committee's discussed staffing and revenue trends in the Fire Department, which is seeing more worker compensation claims and overtime expenditures — trends that city staff had attributed in large part to the department's smaller head count and growing call volume.

Vice Mayor Pat Burt suggested during the discussion that the city may have gone too far in cutting positions in the Fire Department.

"We've had a tremendous problem with public safety expenses rising far higher than inflation and the revenue rates, and that's certainly been a critical challenge that we've all recognized and we've made real inroads there," Burt said. "But at a certain point in time, we're not just looking at innovating resourceful ways to become efficient in our (service) delivery. We're delivering less."

The city's current contract with the IAFF, Local 1319, is set to expire on June 30, 2022.

Editor's note: This story updated to reflect the fact that Lie's decision on Sept. 14 was a preliminary one.