 |
Newsletters
Department Ordered To
Return Take Home Vehicles To Police Detectives
By Dieter C. Dammeier
Lackie, Dammeier & McGill APC
The Los Angeles School Police Department is a 300 person department, including 15 police detectives. For the past 20 years it has been the practice of the school district to provide take home vehicles for all police detectives. In March of 2000, Chief of Police Wesley Mitchell informed the police association president, Paul Quezada that it was his intent to remove the take- home privileges of the vehicles utilized by detectives. Chief Mitchell had taken this action before back in 1994, however, political pressure was brought to bare on the District and the then superintendent ordered the police chief to reinstate the use of take-home vehicles for detectives. In March 2000, however, there was a new superintendent in place and Chief Mitchell was able to convince him to overturn the previous superintendent's directive.
The Association's counsel, Dieter Dammeier of Lackie, Dammeier & McGill, APC, promptly sent correspondence to Chief Mitchell explaining that the take-home vehicles were an economic benefit and as such could not be unilaterally removed without going through the "meet and confer" process. Chief Mitchell maintained that it was his management prerogative to utilize the detective cars as he saw fit. In May of 2000, the detectives were ordered to return the take-home vehicles.
Unable to informally resolve the matter, the Association filed an Unfair Labor Practice Charge with the Public Employee Relations Board (PERB) alleging that the Chief's action in unilaterally removing the detective take-home vehicles violated his obligation to meet and confer prior to implementing policy which effects matters within the scope of representation, such as economic benefits.
An informal conference was held with a PERB administrative law judge on July 13, 2000 in a further attempt to resolve the matter. The administrative law judge informed the District at this conference that traditionally take-home vehicles have been held to be economic benefits by PERB which therefore required a meet and confer before they could be taken away. The District, still arguing that they had the "managerial right" to utilize district property how they wished refused to settle the matter. A formal hearing was therefore set for September 27, 2000.
At the formal hearing evidence and testimony was introduced by past and present detectives which illustrated that the take-home vehicle benefit was one of the primary incentives for persons who applied for the detective positions. Additionally, evidence was introduced establishing the economic impact upon removal of the take-home vehicles, including detectives having to purchase a second family car, additional vehicle maintenance, insurance and fuel expenses. The 20 year past practice of the District providing take-home vehicles for detectives was also established by present and past detectives. A former association president testified as to the political action he took in having the then superintendent order Chief Mitchell to return the take-home vehicles to detectives. He testified that when the vehicles were taken away in the early 1990's their then counsel informed them that they would not be able to prevail in an Unfair Labor Charge with PERB. The District was arguing that because the Association did not file an Unfair Labor Charge back in the early 90's when the vehicles were taken away for a brief period, they waived their ability to do so now.
The District defended its actions by attempting to rely on the Management Rights section of the Memorandum of Understanding between the District and the Association which lists certain "retained rights" by the District including "utilization of all District properties and equipment." This argument was easily countered with the language in the Management Rights article of the M.O.U. which expressly states "the provisions of this article are not intended to expand the rights of the District beyond statutory and constitutional limits." Since the obligation to meet and confer over economic benefits is a statutory requirement in the Government Code, the Association maintained that the management rights article in the M.O.U. did not authorize the District to circumvent the meet and confer requirement.
PERB concluded that the Association had established a unilateral change by the District of a past practice in regard to a "negotiable subject." By this action, PERB further found that the District violated Government Code §3543.5(c) and by failing to meet and confer when demanded to by the Association also violated Government Code §3543.5(a) & (b). Specifically PERB held "the District has been found in violation of its duty to meet and negotiate in good faith by unilaterally rescinding the past practice whereby district police detectives could commute to and from work in District-owned vehicles."
The PERB decision ordered the District to "immediately reinstate the past practice of providing take-home vehicles for police detectives" and to reimburse the effected detectives for mileage based on the District's rate for the period of time the detectives were without take-home vehicles, with interest.
|
