106 Cal.App.5th 982
Cal. Ct. App.2024Background
- California enacted statutes (Penal Code §§ 13670 and 13510.8) in 2022 requiring law enforcement agencies to prohibit participation in law enforcement gangs and cooperate with investigations of such gangs.
- The Los Angeles Office of the Inspector General (OIG) ordered 35 Sheriff's deputies to submit to interviews, disclose gang-related tattoos, and answer questions about their and colleagues’ possible gang affiliations.
- The Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs (ALADS), the union, claimed the OIG’s directive affected employment terms and required the County to meet and confer under the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act (MMBA) before implementing the interviews.
- ALADS filed an unfair labor practice charge and sought a preliminary injunction to halt the interviews pending bargaining or administrative consideration.
- The trial court granted the injunction, holding the interviews significantly affected working conditions, triggering a meet-and-confer requirement, but rejected constitutional claims.
- The County and the ACLU, as amicus, appealed the injunction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff’s Argument | Defendant’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the OIG’s investigation required bargaining | Significant and adverse discipline effects on employment; effects bargaining required under MMBA. | Investigation is a managerial prerogative mandated by statute; no bargaining required. | OIG’s decision to investigate is not negotiable, but effects (e.g., discipline) are subject to bargaining. |
| Whether the planned interviews constituted a change in working conditions within the MMBA “scope of representation” | Introducing discipline for new conduct and compelling disclosures is a substantive change triggering duty to bargain. | Impact was minimal, part of agency management, and not within scope of MMBA bargaining. | Interviews closely linked to discipline are a significant and adverse effect, requiring bargaining. |
| Balancing interim harm (injunction appropriateness) | Failure to bargain would irreparably harm union representation and employee rights. | Public interest in investigating police gangs outweighs harm to union process. | Balancing favored injunction; union irreparable harm outweighs delay in investigation. |
| Whether the trial court erred in considering ERCOM decisions | ERCOM previously held similar bargaining was required; trial court properly relied on that expertise. | ERCOM’s decisions were non-binding, inapplicable, and shouldn’t influence the court. | ERCOM decisions had persuasive value; reliance was not improper. |
Key Cases Cited
- Claremont Police Officers Assn. v. City of Claremont, 39 Cal.4th 623 (Cal. 2006) (Defining when investigatory or disciplinary policies implicate the duty to bargain)
- International Assn. of Fire Fighters, Local 188, AFL-CIO v. Public Employment Relations Bd., 51 Cal.4th 259 (Cal. 2011) (Setting categories for negotiable employment decisions and bargaining obligations)
- Building Material & Construction Teamsters' Union v. Farrell, 41 Cal.3d 651 (Cal. 1986) (Describing the scope of representation and when bargaining is required)
- Holliday v. City of Modesto, 229 Cal.App.3d 528 (Cal. Ct. App. 1991) (Mandatory drug testing policy subject to bargaining)
- Vernon Fire Fighters v. City of Vernon, 107 Cal.App.3d 802 (Cal. Ct. App. 1980) (Disciplinary rule changes as mandatory bargaining subjects)