Court Orders City Cease Reorganization Pending Decision-Bargaining, Awards Union Attorney’s Fees
November 17, 2014 by Andrew Baker
A California Court of Appeals has affirmed an order forcing the City of Indio to cease its planned reorganization of a police command unit pending bargaining with the Indio Police Command Unit Association over the decision to reorganize. In the national environment of considerable anti-union sentiment, this finding is one that our Beeson, Tayer and Bodine (BT&B) law firm supports as it is a long time defender of labor union rights in both the public and private sectors.
In 2012, the City’s newly hired Police Chief announced his decision to implement a “strategic reorganization” of the police department’s command structure. The Chief was hired over objections from the Union and in the context of increasingly strained relations between the bargaining parties after the Union publicly opposed several councilmembers in a prior election. The reorganization would have resulted in the layoff of several Union members and the outside hire of a new commander. The Union’s membership was slated to shrink from 14 to only 9 members, effectively destroying the Union.
The City agreed to bargain over the plan’s effects but refused to bargain with the Union over whether the reorganization would take place, claiming such decisions are a management right. The Union sued in court (PERB does not have jurisdiction over sworn officers), and the trial court agreed with the Union that the City’s reorganization plan was subject to decision-bargaining under the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act (MMBA). The court concluded decision-bargaining was required because “a major purpose and effect of the plan was to save labor costs by transferring job duties out of a recognized bargaining unit and, as such, would have a significant and adverse effect on wages, hours, or other working conditions,” activities covered by MMBA.
Notably, the trial court granted the Union’s request for an injunction to block the reorganization plan until the City satisfied its bargaining obligation, and awarded the Union attorneys fees.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals agreed with the trial court and the Union on all points. The court affirmed an award of $102,900 in attorney’s fees to the Union under the private attorney general statute, CCP § 1021.5. The court outlined the following in their ruling. 1) Recognized that the procedural and labor rights of police officers are important rights. 2) Litigation to enforce these rights was of a significant benefit to other city employee unions and also to the general public, as stable relations between peace officers and their employers assures effective law enforcement.
BT&B law offices are located in Oakland and Sacramento and we offer legal representation to individuals and unions related to job rights and collective bargaining. We invite you to visit our legal blog and search for Meyers-Milias-Brown Act for more cases involving the rights of public sector unions in California.
The material on this website is provided by Beeson, Tayer & Bodine for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Readers should consult with their own legal counsel before acting on any of the information presented. Some of the articles are updated periodically, and are marked with the date of the last update. Again, readers should consult with their own legal counsel for the most current information and to obtain professional advice before acting on any of the information presented.
