27 Cal.App.5th 676
Cal. Ct. App.2018Background
- The San Francisco Police Officers’ Association (Association) sought arbitration under its MOU after the City/Police Commission adopted a revised SFPD use of force policy that banned the carotid restraint and shooting at moving vehicles.
- The Commission engaged stakeholders and met with the Association during drafting; disagreements persisted and City declared impasse after negotiations over scope issues; the parties later reached a side agreement on training and discipline.
- The Association filed a grievance (later amended) demanding arbitration and seeking suspension/overturning of policy provisions and additional bargaining; City denied arbitration, asserting the policy was a managerial, nonnegotiable decision and/or necessary to comply with law/Charter.
- Trial court denied the petition to compel arbitration, finding the MOU excluded actions the City reasonably determined were necessary to ensure compliance with law and that use-of-force policy decisions are fundamental managerial/policy choices not subject to meet-and-confer or arbitration.
- The Association appealed; the Court of Appeal affirmed, holding the MOU carved out such City actions and that the grievance sought relief beyond arbitrable implementation impacts (seeking to overturn policy), and training/discipline impacts had already been resolved.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the City’s denial of the grievance was subject to arbitration under the MOU | The arbitrability question should be decided by an arbitrator; the grievance challenges failure to meet-and-confer (a contractual obligation) so it is arbitrable | The MOU excludes City actions necessary to ensure compliance with laws/Charter from grievance/arbitration; use-of-force policy is a fundamental managerial decision outside scope | Denied: court properly decided arbitrability because MOU expressly delegates judicial determination for such excluded actions; use-of-force policy not arbitrable |
| Whether the City’s adoption/implementation of the use-of-force policy is within scope of representation | Even if policy is managerial, arbitrator should determine whether impacts on working conditions were left unaddressed and thus arbitrable | Adoption/implementation is a core managerial/policy decision (police power); potential impacts were limited to training/discipline and were already agreed upon | Denied: policy formulation is a fundamental managerial decision; implementation impacts subject to bargaining were limited and resolved (side agreement), so no arbitrable issues remained |
| Whether the trial court improperly decided the merits (i.e., whether City breached meet-and-confer) when denying arbitration | Court improperly reached merits; section 1281.2 forbids refusal to order arbitration on merits grounds | Court addressed only arbitrability under the MOU exclusion (not merits) as required by MOU paragraph 16 | Denied: court did not decide merits; it determined arbitrability under contractual exception and state-authority precedent |
| Whether the City’s voluntary pre-adoption meetings waived its managerial rights or opened policy to bargaining | Association argued City’s engagement and later statements meant arbitrator should decide scope | City maintained participation as stakeholder did not relinquish managerial/Charter authority or ability to decide policy | Held for City: voluntary stakeholder input did not convert a managerial, nondelegable policy decision into an arbitrable matter |
Key Cases Cited
- San Jose Peace Officers Assn. v. City of San Jose, 78 Cal.App.3d 935 (use-of-force policy is a managerial decision outside MMBA bargaining)
- Building Material & Construction Teamsters’ Union v. Farrell, 41 Cal.3d 651 (distinguishes managerial decisions from implementational impacts; balancing test)
- Claremont Police Officers Assn. v. City of Claremont, 39 Cal.4th 623 (implementation of managerial decisions may be subject to balancing test regarding impacts)
- Victoria v. Superior Court, 40 Cal.3d 734 (no policy compelling arbitration of disputes parties did not agree to arbitrate)
- Pinnacle Museum Tower Assn. v. Pinnacle Market Development (US), LLC, 55 Cal.4th 223 (petitions to compel arbitration reviewed de novo when facts unconflicted)
- California Correctional Peace Officers Assn. v. State of California, 142 Cal.App.4th 198 (distinguishes statutory-exception arguments to arbitration; cited by parties)