217 Cal. App. 4th 29
Cal. Ct. App.2013Background
- The Sheriff ordered, effective January 1, 2011, that any deputy under investigation could not access internal affairs investigative files before interview.
- The Association filed a petition for writ of mandate and sought a preliminary injunction against the County, Department, Sheriff, and Board of Supervisors.
- Before the order, principals could review the investigative file preinterview, sometimes for hours or days, with access to counsel or union representatives and to take notes.
- Declarations stated the practice interfered with prompt, thorough, and fair investigations and could chill witnesses or lead recollections to be colored by prior access.
- The trial court denied the Association’s petition and the Association appealed; the appellate court affirmed, applying Claremont and Pasadena to determine whether MMBA meet-and-confer requirements applied and whether the MOU was breached.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the Sheriff’s order trigger MMBA meet-and-confer requirements? | Association argues it materially affects working conditions and requires bargaining. | County/Department contends it is a managerial decision not mandating meet-and-confer. | No, order did not fall within MMBA meet-and-confer requirements. |
| Was preinvestigative access a working condition or implied MOU term? | Past practice constitutes an implied term in the MOU. | No implied term; MOU silent on preinterview access. | Not a working condition; not an implied term of the MOU. |
| Did the zipper clause compel bargaining over the access change? | Zipper clause requires meeting and conferring on changes within scope. | Zipper clause does not force bargaining on management decisions. | Zipper clause did not require bargaining on this managerial decision. |
Key Cases Cited
- Pasadena Police Officers Assn. v. City of Pasadena, 51 Cal.3d 564 (Cal. 1990) (preinterrogation discovery not required; policy reasons to limit discovery before interrogation)
- Claremont Police Officers Assn. v. City of Claremont, 39 Cal.4th 623 (Cal. 2006) (three-part test to determine MMBA scope: significant adverse effect, managerial decision, balancing)
- International Assn. of Fire Fighters, Local 188, AFL-CIO v. Public Employment Relations Bd., 51 Cal.4th 259 (Cal. 2011) (reiterates management decision framework and balancing approach)
- Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs v. County of Los Angeles, 166 Cal.App.4th 1625 (Cal. App. 2008) (anti-huddling/meet-and-confer issues; relevance to working conditions)
- Long Beach Police Officer Assn. v. City of Long Beach, 156 Cal.App.3d 996 (Cal. App. 1984) (past practices not automatically working conditions absent MOUs terms)
- Pasadena Police Officers Assn. v. City of Pasadena, 51 Cal.3d 564 (Cal. 1990) (recognized limits on preinterview discovery under MMBA context)