In the 1987 case, Regents of the University of California v. Public Employment Relations Board et al., the Supreme Court ruled in favor of The Regents of the University of California (UC). The dispute arose when UC refused to negotiate with a union over certain managerial decisions that affected employees' working conditions. The Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) argued that UC was required by law to discuss these matters with unions before making any changes. However, UC contended they were not obligated under state law to negotiate on issues related to their educational mission and institutional objectives. In its decision, the court agreed with UC's interpretation and held that while public employers must bargain over many employment-related matters, they are not legally required to consult unions about fundamental policy decisions affecting an institution’s direction or purpose.

In the dissenting opinion for Regents of the University of California v. Public Employment Relations Board et al., Justice Mosk argued that the majority's decision to deny collective bargaining rights to student resident assistants at university-operated dormitories was unjustified. He contended that these students were indeed employees under state law, as they received compensation and benefits in exchange for their services, which included administrative duties and maintaining order within their respective dormitories. Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority's assertion that granting these students collective bargaining rights would interfere with educational policies or objectives; instead, he believed it could enhance them by improving working conditions and thus attracting higher-quality candidates for such positions. Finally, Justice Mosk criticized his colleagues' reliance on out-of-state cases involving different legal contexts rather than focusing on relevant California precedents.