CALPELRA Alert: Court Of Appeal Confirms Injunction Against Police Management Reorganization
The California Court of Appeal confirmed a superior court’s decision that the City violated its MMBA’s duty to meet and confer over the City’s proposed reorganization of the department’s command staff.[1]  The City had contended that it had no duty to meet and confer regarding the reorganization or layoff, and that it was required to negotiate only the effects of the reorganization and layoffs.  In addition, the City had contended that the several meetings it held with the union before the proposed implementation date were sufficient to cover the duty to bargain on the effects.
 
Factual Summary

In March 2012, after only two months on the job, the newly appointed police chief announced a reorganization of the Department’s command staff.  The proposed reorganization would eliminate the second tier and mid-level command management. The plan would replace the captain and four lieutenant positions with two non-bargaining unit commanders, and after layoff would result in the demotion of most of the 14 unit members. The City projected the reorganization would save more that $500,000 annually.
 
When the union attempted to raise the issue of the reorganization plan during their negotiations over wage concessions, the city manager informed the union that the concessions and the organization were completely different issues; that the reorganization plan would take place no matter what; and the union had no right to offer a “response” to the plan.  According to the superior court hearing record, the City did not attempt to elicit union proposals on the effects of the reorganization, nor did the City attempt to discuss the transfer of bargaining unit work.

Court Of Appeal Decision

First, the Court of Appeal affirmed the application of the California Supreme Court’s decision in Building Material & Construction Teamsters’ Union v. Farrell [2] to this case, finding that a permanent transfer of work away from a bargaining unit had a significant effect on wages, hours, and working conditions of the bargaining-unit employees. “[T]ransfer of bargaining unit work to nonbargaining–unit employees is a proper subject for negotiations.”[3]  After additional discussion of Building Material and related cases, the Court determined “the City’s reorganization plan was subject to [MMBA] section 3505’s meet and confer requirement.”
 
Next, the Court delved into whether the several meetings the City held with the union before implementing the plan fulfilled the City’s obligation to meet and confer in good faith concerning the reorganization plan. The Court, relying on the evidence that the City representatives rebuffed any union attempts to discuss the matter, determined that the “evidence supports the trial court’s implied finding the City had no intention of negotiating any sort of agreement with the [union] regarding the reorganization plan and indeed had no intention form the outset of not budging from its plan.”
 
Finally, the Court decided among other issues that the City’s was liable to pay for the union attorneys’ fees for the superior court trial and the appeal to the higher court.
[1] Indio Police Command Unit Association v. City of Indio (2014) __ Cal.Rptr.3d __.
[2] Building Material & Construction Teamsters’ Union v. Farrell  (1986) 41 Cal.3d 651.
[3] Building Material & Construction Teamsters’ Union v. Farrell, supra, 41 Ca.3d at 661.
PRACTITIONER TIPS

Because this case involved sworn police officers, a bargaining unit excluded from PERB jurisdiction under the MMBA, the case was tried in local superior court and not by a PERB ALJ. Thus, the case did not have to be appealed to PERB before reaching the Court of Appeal.
 
It is debatable whether the outcome would be different if decided by the current PERB. The likely differences would be that PERB -- in finding the City violated its duty to negotiate –  would likely have agreed with the City that it did not have to bargain over the decision to reorganize and layoff, only the “reasonably foreseeable impacts of the reorganization on mandatory subjects.” If the union did not specify those impacts after receiving the notice and opportunity, however, the City’s several meetings may have fulfilled its meet and confer obligation.
 
Additionally PERB would have agreed with the Court that the transfer of bargaining unit work is a mandatory subject, both in terms of the decision to transfer and the effects of that decision.
 
Finally, PERB would likely have found that the City failed to “meet and clarify” over whether the reorganization involved mandatory subjects of bargaining.
This Alert summarizes a significant recent court case, arbitration decision, legislation, or other important information.  The Alert format is not intended as a periodic review of all significant cases, but instead provides labor relations practitioners with key information for immediate guidance in day-to-day activities.
CALPELRA President:  G. Scott Miller, Ventura Port District
Alert No. 14-29,  Author:  William F. Kay and M. Carol Stevens, Burke, Williams & Sorensen
The information contained in this publication is not intended to constitute professional counsel or a legal opinion. Although we consider the information to be timely and accurate, there is no substitute for personal counsel with a professional. Provided with specific facts, your attorney can fashion a solution sensitive to your needs.
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Copyright © 2014 CALPELRA (California Public Employers Labor Relations Association), All rights reserved.