 |
Supreme Court
Clarifies Public Employers’ Meet and Confer Obligations
By: Dieter C. Dammeier
Lackie & Dammeier
On
August 14, 2006 the California Supreme Court issued its decision in
Claremont Police Officers Association v. City of Claremont. As many of
you may recall, in 1998 there was an officer involved shooting in which
an African American was shot and killed after pulling a handgun from his
waistband on a traffic stop. A few members of the community claimed it
was a racial profiling traffic stop and created a local uproar. The City
succumbed to the public pressure and created a Citizen Police
Commission. One of the things the Commission did was implement a traffic
stop racial profiling study. The Study required officers to fill out a
form after every traffic stop, indicating the reason for the stop, the
race of the driver, the race the officer thought the driver was prior to
the stop and other details of the stop. Needless to say, officers were
not only offended by having to complete such a study, the added
paperwork created an increased workload for the officers. Not
surprisingly, the number of traffic stops went down.
The POA was also concerned about how the study was being conducted (by
college students), how the data might be used such as in officer
evaluations or disciplinary actions and whether the info would be
released to the public as a public record. Because of these concerns,
the POA asked its attorneys, Lackie and Dammeier, if somehow the study
could be stopped until the concerns could be addressed. Since political
pressure was not likely to get the POA’s desired results, a novel
approach was developed to make the issue a legal one. Lackie and
Dammeier raised the issue that since the Study may negatively impact
terms and conditions of employment, the City was required to meet and
confer with the POA prior to implementing the Study. The Superior Court
sided with the City but the Court of Appeal in this case held that the
City of Claremont was required to meet and confer with the Claremont
Police Officers Association prior to implementing a racial profiling
study. The Court of Appeal reasoned that since there were significant
potential impacts to officers’ careers should the data from the study be
used for personnel purposes, the meet and confer requirements were
triggered. As a result of the decision of the Court of Appeal, the City
immediately stopped the study.
The California Supreme Court decided to hear the case. Due to the length
of time that passed, the case was moot for Claremont since the study was
halted and the POA and City ultimately meet and agreed as to what the
data from the study would be used for. The City agreed that the study
data would not be released to the public but only a summary of the data
would be, without naming any individual officers, and that the data
would not be used for personnel purposes against any officers. However,
since the Supreme Court had not decided a meet and confer case in over
20 years, many onlookers were hoping for some clarification by the Court
of a test to determine what subjects fall within the meet and confer
requirements of the Myers-Milias-Brown Act. In fashioning its decision
the Court partially clarified the long-standing vague rules in trying to
decide what is and what is not a meet and confer subject.
The Court held that the City of Claremont could make a decision to have
a racial profiling study without having to meet and confer but may have
to meet and confer on any negative impacts to terms and conditions of
employment the study may create. In Claremont’s case, there ended up
being no negative impacts as a result of the racial profiling study,
which the City halted after the Court of Appeal Decision. As such, the
Supreme Court did not have to decide whether or not there were negative
impacts that the City would have to meet and confer over. The City
argued in the case that there should be no difference between the
initial decision itself and its effects. The City reasoned that the
primary decision itself is usually “intertwined” with the implementation
and therefore could be separated. Fortunately, the Supreme Court agreed
with the Association and followed federal case law precedent in
acknowledging the dichotomy, allowing the Court’s to look at the
decision itself and its effects separately and determine if either
requires a meet and confer process. Accordingly, while a decision itself
may not be subject to the meet and confer requirements, the effects of
the implementation of that decision may be. Public sector union
attorneys will be happy to hear that California Courts will now follow
its federal counterparts in requiring a meet and confer not only on the
primary decision itself but also on the impacts or effects of such
decisions.
Historically, Courts have looked at whether decisions made by management
were “fundamental” management decisions, and if so, the Courts generally
held that they were not subject to the meet and confer requirement. The
inquiry normally ended there. In the Claremont case, the Supreme Court
has recognized and adopted an expanded inquiry by implementing a three
part test; 1) whether the management action has a “significant and
adverse effect on wages, hours, or working conditions of the bargaining
unit employees.” If not, there is no duty to meet and confer; 2) whether
the impact arises from the implementation of a fundamental managerial or
policy decision. If it is not an area of fundamental management
discretion, the employer will be required to meet and confer; and; 3)
where there is a fundamental management decision that has a significant
and adverse effects on terms and conditions of employment, there is a
balancing test. The Court’s will balance the employer’s need for
unencumbered decision making against the benefit to employer-employee
relations that result from meeting and conferring over the proposed
action.
While this case helps clarify subjects that require a meet and confer,
there will still continue to be litigation over balancing of the
interests as required by this newly adopted test. Some issues coming up
that may utilize the three-part test include video in police cars,
vehicle tracking systems and mandatory audio recording policies. All of
these issues may arguably involve a primary management decision in
deciding to implement these technologies but POA’s under this test can
now argue that the effects have impacts on terms and conditions of
employment (discipline, safety, privacy etc.) that are subject to the
meet and confer process.
About the author: Dieter C. Dammeier is a LDF Panel Attorney and Chief
Negotiator at Lackie & Dammeier representing police associations
throughout California who argued this case before the California Supreme
Court for the Claremont Police Officers Association.
|
