El Dorado County Deputy Sheriff's Ass'n v. County of El Dorado
198 Cal. Rptr. 3d 502
Cal. Ct. App.2016Background
- In 2011 El Dorado County created a new "sheriff’s security officer" classification (11 positions) assigned to a general bargaining unit; the County also deleted several vacant sheriff sergeant and deputy sheriff positions from the law-enforcement bargaining unit represented by the El Dorado County Deputy Sheriff’s Association (the Association).
- The County placed the new classification outside the law-enforcement unit because those security officers would not have peace-officer authority.
- The Association had actual notice of the County’s decision before implementation but did not demand to bargain until a year later (August 2012); the Association sued seeking to undo the reclassification and deletions and to require bargaining.
- Trial court found: (1) the new duties were not bargaining-unit work (undisputed on appeal), so the County had no duty to bargain over the decision itself; (2) the County had a duty to bargain over the effects (e.g., lost overtime), but the Association waived that right because it had actual advance notice and failed to demand bargaining; and (3) the County did not violate its local rules when it deleted the vacant law-enforcement positions.
- On appeal the court held that the County was required to give notice only of the decision (not of reasonably foreseeable effects), so the Association waived effects bargaining given its actual notice; however, the court reversed the finding on local rules and held the County violated its rule requiring notice and consultation before deleting positions, directing restoration of the deleted law-enforcement unit positions and that the County proceed according to law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether employer must give advance notice of reasonably foreseeable effects of a nonnegotiable decision (in addition to notice of the decision) | Association: County was required to give advance notice of both the decision and its reasonably foreseeable effects so the union could demand bargaining over effects | County: Notice of the decision alone is sufficient; no duty to identify foreseeable effects | Held: Employer must give notice only of the decision; not of reasonably foreseeable effects; actual notice of the decision sufficed here |
| Whether Association waived rights to bargain effects by failing to demand bargaining after actual notice | Association: Did not waive because notice lacked specific information about foreseeable effects | County: Association had actual notice of the decision and adequate time, so waiver occurred | Held: Waiver — actual advance notice of the decision and failure to timely demand bargaining constituted waiver of effects bargaining |
| Whether County had duty to bargain over the decision to create sheriff’s security officers (i.e., whether the work is unit work) | Association: Argued County should have bargained | County: Duties were not work of law-enforcement bargaining unit | Held: Duties not bargaining-unit work; County had no duty to bargain over the decision itself (finding undisputed on appeal) |
| Whether County violated its own local rules by deleting vacant law-enforcement positions and appropriate remedy | Association: County failed to give required notice and consultation; remedy should restore deleted positions and eliminate created security-officer positions | County: Deletions were only reallocations of vacant positions; remedy would intrude on budgeting/management rights; propose limited remedies | Held: County violated its local rule (and Gov. Code §3507.1) by not giving notice/consultation; remedy is to invalidate the deletion of the vacant law-enforcement positions and direct the County to proceed according to law (but court declined to order elimination of filled sheriff’s security officer positions or a posting notice) |
Key Cases Cited
- Claremont Police Officers Assn. v. City of Claremont, 39 Cal.4th 623 (2006) (MMBA scope and meet-and-confer principles)
- County of Los Angeles v. Los Angeles County Employee Relations Com., 56 Cal.4th 905 (2013) (deference to PERB interpretations generally discussed)
- Stockton Police Officers’ Assn. v. City of Stockton, 206 Cal.App.3d 62 (1988) (failure to assert bargaining rights after notice constitutes waiver)
- San Diego Adult Educators v. Public Employment Relations Bd., 223 Cal.App.3d 1124 (1990) (actual notice to union official can satisfy notice requirement)
- County of Butte v. Superior Court, 176 Cal.App.3d 693 (1985) (separation of powers and limits on judicial interference with legislative budget decisions)
- Highland Ranch v. Agricultural Labor Relations Bd., 29 Cal.3d 848 (1981) (extraordinary remedies for employer’s unilateral actions that cannot be undone)
- Cornette v. Department of Transportation, 26 Cal.4th 63 (2001) (actual notice and foreseeability principles)