Santa Clara County Correctional Peace Officers' Ass'n v. County of Santa Clara
169 Cal. Rptr. 3d 228
Cal. Ct. App.2014Background
- County of Santa Clara (DOC) and the Correctional Peace Officers’ Association (Association) had an MOU (effective June 2, 2008) recognizing three shift plans: 5/8 (80 hrs biweekly), 4/10 (80 hrs), and a long-standing 12 Plan (12.25-hr shifts, 85.75 hrs biweekly).
- Section 7.1(b) of the MOU reserved the Appointing Authority’s right to convert Twelve Plan assignments to 5/8 or 4/10 upon 45 days’ written notice and afforded the Association the opportunity to meet and confer before implementation.
- Facing a required DOC budget reduction for FY 2012, the County proposed modifying the 12 Plan to eliminate the 5.75 built-in biweekly overtime (bringing affected schedules to ~80 hrs biweekly) to avoid layoffs; notice and three meetings occurred in June 2011 prior to July 4 implementation.
- The Association conducted a membership vote (reported July 6, 2011) which favored a modified 12 Plan variant but included a disclaimer denying consent to reduce 85.75 hrs; the Association then filed a petition for writ of mandate alleging failure to meet-and-confer and bad-faith bargaining.
- Trial court denied the petition, finding the MOU reserved conversion rights, the Association’s member vote favored the County’s modified 12 Plan form, and the County met its meet-and-confer obligations; the Court of Appeal affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Exhaustion of contractual remedies | Association: grievance/arbitration route not required for a negotiable topic; did not need to exhaust MOU grievance procedure | County: Association must exhaust contractual grievance/arbitration remedies before court action | Held: No exhaustion required because MOU excluded items "within the scope of representation and subject to the meet and confer process" from the grievance procedure; topic was bargainable. |
| Duty to meet & confer / bargainability | Association: County set arbitrary deadline, failed to complete good-faith bargaining and impasse procedures before implementing reduced hours | County: MOU reserved right to convert 12 Plan; gave notice and met; could implement under reservation | Held: Reduction from 85.75 to ~80 hrs was within scope of representation (bargainable). County met its meet-and-confer obligations under the MOU and MMBA regarding implementation details; no business-emergency excuse existed to avoid bargaining. |
| Impasse resolution / mediation | Association: County failed to go to impasse/mediate and thus prematurely implemented changes | County: MMBA does not mandate impasse procedures; MOU/Code governed timing; County followed MOU’s 45-day notice/process | Held: MMBA does not itself impose mandatory impasse procedures; County Code provides mediation but the MOU’s 45‑day notice/implementation framework governed here and effectively limited ability to delay implementation by declaring impasse. |
| Waiver / scope of reserved rights | Association: Section 7.1(b) does not authorize the particular Modified 12 Plan; County waived unilateral rights to change hours | County: Reservation permits conversion and included implementation flexibility | Held: Reservation to convert 12 Plan employees to other plans (and to meet and confer only about implementation) meant County could offer modifications to achieve 80-hr biweekly schedules; Association did not retain a right to postpone implementation beyond 45 days. |
Key Cases Cited
- Fire Fighters Union v. City of Vallejo, 12 Cal.3d 608 (Cal. 1974) (work schedules and layoffs: schedules are bargainable; implementation details are subject to bargaining)
- Building Material & Construction Teamsters’ Union v. Farrell, 41 Cal.3d 651 (Cal. 1986) (scope-of-representation test and waiver principles under MMBA)
- Claremont Police Officers Assn. v. City of Claremont, 39 Cal.4th 623 (Cal. 2006) (three-part test for bargainability and balancing management prerogative)
- International Assn. of Fire Fighters, Local 188 v. Public Employment Relations Bd., 51 Cal.4th 259 (Cal. 2011) (public-employer unilateral decisions re: layoffs: bargaining required over implementation/effects, not over initial necessity)
- Huntington Beach Police Officers’ Assn. v. City of Huntington Beach, 58 Cal.App.3d 492 (Cal. Ct. App. 1976) (city resolution and MOU cannot exempt negotiable schedule changes from meet-and-confer)
- Independent Union of Pub. Service Employees v. County of Sacramento, 147 Cal.App.3d 482 (Cal. Ct. App. 1983) (retained management rights do not necessarily waive right to meet and confer)
- Placentia Fire Fighters v. City of Placentia, 57 Cal.App.3d 9 (Cal. Ct. App. 1976) (good-faith bargaining standard; no duty to agree but duty to attempt to reach agreement)