The opinion
REYNOSO, J.
I concur in the result. The reasoning of the majority on the issues of appellate review and appropriate available remedies to an aggrieved public employee are sufficiently bothersome that I set forth my disagreement.
1. Appellate Review
Generally, an appellate court will not disturb the findings of the trial court. I have examined the record looking at the evidence in the light most favorable to the court’s findings, giving the prevailing party the benefit of eveiy reasonable inference, and resolving conflicts in support of the judgment. I have concluded the findings and conclusions are supported by substantial evidence. (Crawford v. Southern Pacific Co. (1935) 3 Cal.2d 427, 429 [ 45 P.2d 183 ]; 6 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (2d ed. 1971) § 245, pp. 4236-4237.) The appellate court has no power to judge the effects or value of evidence presented at trial, to weigh the evidence, to consider the credibility of the witnesses, 1 or to resolve conflicts in the *805 evidence. (Buckhantz v. R. G. Hamilton & Co. (1945) 71 Cal.App.2d 777 [ 163 P.2d 756 ]; 6 Witkin, Cal. Procedure, supra, at pp. 4237-4238.) The trial court, not the appellate tribunal, must decide what, if anything, testified to by this witness is creditable.
The trial court found that the district had violated its obligation to meet and confer in good faith. “The question of good or bad faith is primarily a factual determination based on the totality of the circumstances (see e.g., Labor Board v. Insurance Agents, 361 U.S. 477, 498 [ 4 L.Ed.2d 454, 469 , 80 S.Ct. 419, 432 ]; N.L.R.B. v. General Electric Company, supra, 418 F.2d 736, 756 ) and therefore on appeal the trial court’s finding must be upheld if it is supported by the record as a whole. . . . (N.L.R.B. v. Herman Sausage Co., supra, 275 F.2d 229, 231 .)” (Placentia Fire Fighters v. City of Placentia (1976) 57 Cal.App.3d 9, 25 [ 129 Cal.Rptr. 126 ].) There was testimony at trial that the bargaining team was a fact-finding committee without any authority; that the bargaining team failed to recommend that the district adopt a memorandum of understanding; that the directors made unilateral changes in the terms and conditions of employment; that representatives of the board attempted to deal directly with employees, circumventing the recognized representative; and that representatives of the board encouraged employees to abandon their union and instead join an association. The trial court, after hearing the nine witnesses, made findings of fact that the board did not meet and confer in good faith. There is substantial evidence in support of such findings.
2. The Remedy
The Meyers-Milias-Brown Act, Government Code section 3500 et seq., outlines the district’s responsibility to public employees. Consistent with this scheme, the district must meet and confer in good faith with employee representatives. Here, the district breached its obligation under the act by its failure to confer in good faith. The district, in effect, frustrated the purpose and intent of the act. In response to the district’s *806 breach, the employees staged a work stoppage. Because the employees failed to return to work, they were fired. I am not prepared to establish an absolute rule that the employer may ignore the law on the one hand and “profit” from it on the other. That is, the employer may not wantonly disregard the law with respect to its own duties and insist the employees dot every “i” respecting their duties. Little tacos as well as big enchiladas merit the protection of the courts. We must give effect to the statutory scheme.
The parties advance two distinct theories, poles apart, which address the crucial issue of how the provisions of the act are to be effectuated. The respondents contend, and the majority agree, that the remedy is a petition for writ of mandate to compel the employer to meet and confer in good faith. On the other distant pole, appellants argue the answer is found in Mastro Plastics Corp. v. Labor Board (1956) 350 U.S. 270 [ 100 L.Ed. 309 , 76 S.Ct. 349 ], wherein the United States Supreme Court gave reinstatement rights to employees who were terminated. While both of these remedies are within the range of the permissible, neither appears appropriate under the facts of this case.
The question before us is whether reinstatement of employees will effectuate aims of the act. Federal labor law, richer than our state experience, gives firm guidance in determining a standard that balances the rights of employers and employees. (See Kohler Co. v. N.L.R.B., 148 NLRB 1434 , 1445; affd, (D.C.Cir. 1965.) 345 F.2d 748 .) The N.L.R.B. reasoned that the seriousness of the employees’ misconduct and the seriousness of the employer’s unlawful acts must be considered in determining whether the remedy would effectuate the policies of the act. This makes sense. We need to recall that, unlike the federal legislation, there is no protected right to strike among public employees. The California balance, therefore, must tilt strongly toward discouraging work stoppages. Thus, in some circumstances, the balance will be against reinstatement. This is true when the facts are ambiguous as to the employer’s violation. If, on the other hand, the acts of the employer demonstrate a patent disregard of its duty (which, in turn, causes the strike) the balance will be in favor of full reinstatement. We deal with a factual situation between the “ambiguous” and “patent disregard” standards.
*807 A careful review of the entire moderately confusing record convinces me that the seriousness of the employer’s misconduct in the case at bar does not outweigh that of the employees’ work stoppage sufficient to order reinstatement. I conclude, accordingly, that under the facts of this case, the employees have no right of reinstatement.
The importance of credibility is emphasized by a reproduction of a portion of the testimony of the cross-examination of a witness, a director for the San Juan Suburban Water District. The transcript appears to paint a picture of an evasive witness. However, without the opportunity to view the witness, I cannot know the credibility of this, or any other, witness: “Q. Now, were you on the personnel committee that was meeting and conferring with the union? A. No. Q. Were you on the finance committee that was — A. Yes, I was. Q. — adopting the proposed budget? A. Uh-huh (affirmative.) Q. At that time you were aware then that your committee had approved a budget that was going to eliminate five field positions? A. No. Q. You were not aware of that? A. No. Q. Well, according to a document that’s in evidence, Mr. Sherwood, says on October 1 your committee, the finance committee, approved for submission to the Board a budget which *805 eliminated five positions. Does that refresh your recollection? A. We might have—we might have recommended it. Q. Showing you Plaintiffs Exhibit 15, which contains a resolution which indicates that the finance committee met on October 1 and recommended a proposed position adjustment and eliminating five positions. A. Uh-huh (affirmative). Q. Do you recall attending a meeting on October 1 and making that recommendation in the committee? A. No, but if it was—I take your word for it. Q. Well, if the strike ensued on October 9 and you on October 1 made a recommendation, then I assume you are aware of the recommendation that you made? A. Surely. . . .”