 |
Court Of Appeal Settles Debate On Whether Cities Are Required To Meet
And Confer Prior To Contracting Out Police Services
By:Dieter C.
Dammeier
Lackie &
Dammeier
On the night of September 13, 2005, the
Rialto City Council approved by a 4 to 1 vote a contract for police
services to be taken over by the San Bernardino County Sheriff’s
Department. This was done with the minimum 24 hours notice required to
hold a Special Council meeting. The next day, Sheriff’s personnel were
taking inventory of equipment and moving quickly to take over
operations.
Rialto POA’s attorneys,
Lackie & Dammeier, took swift action to lay the groundwork for what
would be a six-month legal and political battle over the survival of the
Department. A Temporary Restraining Order was sought and obtained in
San Bernardino County Superior Court, immediately putting a halt to the
Sheriff’s takeover. Superior Court Judge Bob Krug agreed with Rialto
POA’s position that contracting out police services was subject to the
meet and confer requirements. Accordingly, a Preliminary Injunction and
later a Permanent Injunction was issued instructing the City to not
implement a Sheriff takeover until it had fully complied with its meet
and confer obligations. Given the meet and confer requirements, which
included Court ordered meet and confer sessions, an impasse fact finding
procedure, as well as, potential binding interest arbitration, this was
a significant delay for the City to implement its plan. This delay
allowed the POA to garner the public support needed to overturn the City
Council’s Decision. Although moot for Rialto, the City backed by the
League of Cities appealed the case to get a decision on this long
debated topic. The debate is over.
The Court of Appeal, in a published Decision
dated October 3, 2007, in what the Court described as “an issue of first
impression” held that a City must first meet and confer with the
applicable bargaining unit prior to contracting out police services.
The Court concluded in its well reasoned opinion that “without question,
the City’s decision to enter into a contract with the Sheriff’s
Department for law enforcement services affects wages, hours and
conditions of employment of the City’s police officers.” The City’s
arguments in this case primarily focused on other meet and confer cases
that allowed management to eliminate a work force or close a plant
without having to meet and confer. The Court recognized the City’s
argument as not being applicable in this case. While the City would be
allowed to simply close its doors without meeting and conferring (such
as going bankrupt) the City was not doing so in Rialto. The City had
entered into a contract to provide specific levels of police services
for which it was paying for. In other words, it was outsourcing its law
enforcement services and not discontinuing them. The Court relied on
prior significant case law that requires a meet and confer when
transferring work outside of the bargaining unit which it explained
Rialto was doing in this case. The Court’s opinion concluded in
stating, “In sum, as stated in the City’s own staff report, the City’s
decision was motivated by the desire to reduce costs as well as issues
involving employee morale, level of service, and management conflicts.
These issues are eminently suitable for resolution through collective
bargaining.”
The RPOA should be proud
of its success in this case. This is the first case in California in
which a contract was entered (approved by City Council) into for police
services to be contracted out and the Association was able to reverse
the tide and come out triumphant. They could not have done it without
the support of fellow police associations from throughout the state and
PORAC who rallied behind Rialto POA in its time of need. Now, with the
published Appellate Court Decision, RPOA’s fight will help other POA’s
throughout the State who ever have to face a similar situation. |
