Alameda County Management Employees Ass'n v. Superior Court
125 Cal. Rptr. 3d 556
Cal. Ct. App.2011Background
- ACMEA members were laid off in the Court's 2009-2010 budget-driven reduction in force (RIF), with 28 ACMEA employees affected.
- Several ACMEA members sought demotion or transfer to lower-paying SEIU classifications where they previously held tenure, relying on seniority under Court policies.
- The Court denied most demotion requests, citing the SEIU MOU's definition of seniority, which applied to SEIU classifications, not ACMEA's.
- SEIU and ACMEA negotiated MOUs affecting seniority; SEIU's MOU introduced a new seniority definition (Section 30, 30.C.4) that could remove bumping rights for ACMEA members.
- ACMEA and the Individual Petitioners filed a writ of mandate alleging violations of the Trial Court Employment Protection and Governance Act (Gov. Code, § 71600 et seq.), Court policies, and due process rights; the trial court denied the petition.
- A job audit reclassified the Secretary II position into ACMEA-bargained classifications; Fabian sought demotion to Division Secretary, Confidential, which the Court denied, resulting in layoff.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the Court violate the Act by changing ACMEA members' seniority rights without meet and confer? | ACMEA asserts changes to seniority/bumping rights require meet and confer with ACMEA. | Court contends preface allows MOU changes and that changes were with SEIU’s MOU only. | Yes; violated the Act and remand for remedy. |
| Does the preface to the Court's Personnel Policies permit applying SEIU MOU seniority to ACMEA members outside SEIU classifications? | ACMEA argues preface does not authorize SEIU MOU terms for non-SEIU units. | Court argues SEIU MOU governs only SEIU classifications, and preface permits consistency where conflict exists. | No; preface cannot override the Act, and applying SEIU seniority to ACMEA violates representation rights; remand. |
| Should Fabian’s demotion/demotion rights be remanded for factual development? | Fabian sought demotion to Division Secretary, Confidential; Court refused based on tenure history. | Court adhered to tenure requirements; no prior right to demote. | Remand to develop factual record on Fabian’s duties and appropriate demotion remedy. |
| Were the Individual Petitioners entitled to due process hearings before layoff or predemotion? | ACMEA claimed due process hearings were required; some sought hearings on disciplinary concerns. | Court argued economic layoff justified no prelayoff hearings; preponderance of authority supports no due process for budget-driven layoffs. | No; Court's post/prehiring holdings upheld; overall due process not violated. |
Key Cases Cited
- Duncan v. Department of Personnel Administration, 77 Cal.App.4th 1166 (Cal. Ct. App. 2000) (prelayoff hearings not required in budgetary layoffs balancing factors)
- Pasadena Unified Sch. Dist. v. Pasadena Unified Sch. Dist., 71 Cal.App.3d 318 (Cal. Ct. App. 1977) (prelayoff hearings not required in financial crisis)
- Social Services Union v. Alameda County Training & Employment Bd., 207 Cal.App.3d 1458 (Cal. Ct. App. 1989) (union MOU provisions can supersede agency procedures for covered employees)
- Valencia v. County of Sonoma, 158 Cal.App.4th 644 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007) (MOU terms binding on the parties to the MOU; not generally binding on nonparties)
- In re Work Uniform Cases, 133 Cal.App.4th 328 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005) (case discussing binding effects of MOUs on contracting parties)