But I don't think I've ever seen a case in which the right result was as clear as it is here. The statutory text is totally unambiguous. It says that "As a condition to filing an appeal pursuant to this section, an employer shall first post an undertaking with the reviewing court in the amount of the order, decision, or award.” There's no doubt that you've got to file a bond first, and that it's a precondition to filing the appeal.
The Legislative history is similarly transparent. Under a prior version of the statute, which was unclear about when a bond needed to be posted, the Court of Appeal held that the trial court had discretion to extend the deadline for filing a bond. In response, the Legislature expressly changed the statute -- stating that the Court of Appeal's decision was "contrary to the purposes" of the statute -- with the express goal of overruling that decision and squarely requiring a bond in all circumstances prior to the filing of an appeal.
Public policy is similarly served by such a rule. As the Legislature noted when it amended the statute, were an employer allowed to delay filing a bond after it files an appeal, that might result in the employer using that time to wind down its business so there's no money left to pay the employee. Which was (1) exactly what had transpired after the Court of Appeal's ruling, and (2) was why the Legislature amended the statute: to stop that potential abuse.
In short, the right result is crystal clear.
Notwithstanding all of the above, the trial court thought it was totally okay to allow an appeal to go forward as long as it eventually posted a bond.
Fortunately, the Court of Appeal saw things the right way.
It's so easy to write an opinion when things are this easy.