The Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) recently issued a decision in favor of the Long Beach Community College District Police Officers Association (POA) as a result of the District's failure to meet and confer over the effects of the decision to disband their police department and contract out with the City of Long Beach.  This important decision held that the Long Beach Community College District (District) violated the Educational Employment Relations Act, which requires an employer to meet and confer over changes in policy or practices that are matters of negotiation.  Since it is well established that contracting out bargaining unit work is a negotiable item, PERB had no trouble ordering the District to immediately meet and confer with the POA and to pay POA members their back wages and benefits from the date they were laid off-six years ago-until the District met and conferred in good faith. 

             In August 2002, the District informed the POA that it was considering contracting out the District's police services to the City of Long Beach, which would result in a layoff of all POA members.  The POA, represented by Lackie, Dammeier & McGill (LD&M), quickly responded on the POA's behalf that it was not necessarily opposed to a merger, but that this was all subject to negotiation.  The POA was agreeable to the merger as long as all POA members were guaranteed positions with the City of Long Beach.  The POA also requested that all POA members be required to submit only to a limited psychiatric evaluation, a limited background investigation, a limited physical examination, have no probationary period and re-employment rights with the District if they lost their job with the City of Long Beach.

            After not receiving a response from the District, LD&M sent another letter to the District indicating its desire to negotiate, and warned that if the District refused to do so, the POA would be forced to file an unfair practice charge.  In February 2003, the District finally responded that although it would engage in an "informational discussion" with the POA, it would not negotiate over the layoffs.  In June 2003, the District went ahead and adopted a resolution disbanding the police department, laying off all POA members, and entering into a contract with the City of Long Beach to provide security services effective August 2003. 

            LD&M immediately filed an unfair practice charge on behalf of the POA alleging that the District unlawfully failed to meet and confer.  In October and November 2005, PERB held formal hearings.  In December 2005, and after six days of hearings, the administrative law judge issued a proposed decision ruling that the District unilaterally and unlawfully contracted out police services with the City.  Unwilling to accept the consequences of its actions, the District filed its response to the proposed decision challenging the findings.  The matter was appealed to the Board, who issued its decision in January 2008.

In its decision, the Board found that the POA had rightly demanded to negotiate over the effects of the layoffs.  The POA sought to discuss its members' potential employment with the City, as well as the conditions of employment.  The Board held that the POA had consistently maintained its right to negotiate over the effects, and communicated its demand on multiple occasions.  Furthermore, the Board found that District failed to satisfy its duty to negotiate since it was only willing to participate in an "informational discussion."  As such, the Board found that the District clearly violated state law by failing to bargain with the POA. 

As a result, PERB ordered the District to cease and desist from refusing to meet and negotiate with the POA.  In addition, PERB ordered the District to pay POA members who were laid off effective August 2003, their salary and benefits through the date the parties reach impasse or agreement in negotiations.  Subsequent to the decision, the parties negotiated and reached an agreement in August 2008.  Thus, PERB's decision entitled POA members to back pay and benefits for the five years in which they were unlawfully laid off.  While the parties are currently in the process of determining the amount of back pay and benefits each POA member is entitled to, preliminary estimates indicate that the amount the District will owe will be in excess of 2.5 million dollars.  Although no amount of money will completely cure the devastating affects the District's actions had on the 13 POA members, this significant award handed down by PERB will certainly help restore their lives.