Santa Clara County Fulfilled Meeting and Conferring Obligations in Reducing Peace Officer's Work Hours

The California Appeals Court for the Sixth District has held that Santa Clara County (“County”) fulfilled its lawful obligations “to meet and confer” with members of a peace officers association before implementing a plan reducing some members’ work hours.

The County, in an effort to minimize its budget deficit, considered a plan to reduce the hours worked by some deputy sheriffs who were members of the Santa Clara County Correctional Peace Officers Association, Inc. (SCPOA). After three meetings between the county and the SCPOA, the County implemented the reduction despite the SCPOA’s rejection of the plan. The SCPOA filed a petition in the Santa Clara County Superior Court on July 22, 2011, alleging that the County had violated an agreement and state and local law by failing to adequately meet, confer and resolve impasse in implementing the plan. The Superior Court held that because the County had reserved the right to make the reduction, the County met its lawful obligations. The SCPOA appealed, and on March 17, 2014, the appellate court affirmed the judgment.

The SCPOA consisted of deputy sheriffs working for the County’s Department of Corrections (DOC) in 2011. Under the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), an agreement between the SCPOA and the County, deputies were employed either: 1) five day a week at eight hours a day (the 518 Plan); 2) four days a week at ten hours a day (the 4/10 Plan) (both totaling 80 hours biweekly), or; 3) four days a week, three days the next week at 12.25 hours a day, totaling 85.75 hours (the 12 Plan). Among a list of proposals to cut $15 million from the County’s projected $230 million budget deficit, the DOC proposed to modify the 12 Plan to 80 hours biweekly or change it to the 5/8 or 4/10 Plan.

The SCPOA was informed on May 19, 2011, that the changes would not be effective until July 4, 2011, and would not be implemented until the parties met and conferred. The County and the SCPOA first met on June 2, 2011, and then on June 13, 2011. The SCPOA rejected the County’s assertion that the proposal was a business necessity, among rising other complaints and objectives at these meetings. On June 15, the County Board of Supervisors accepted the proposal. At a third meeting on June 20, the SCPOA agreed to vote on the proposal. The SCPOA vote by email on July 6, 2011, rejected the proposal 200 to 15, but it overwhelmingly preferred over the other options, a work schedule of one eight-hour day with the rest 12-hour days. Nevertheless, the proposal was implemented without the consent of the SCPOA.

The SCPOA claimed that the County’s duties to meet and confer in good faith and to engage in impasse resolution had not been completed, that the deadline to implement the changes had been arbitrarily set, and that the County could not justify the changes as a “business necessity.” Denying the claims, the County asserted that it had a right to modify the 12 Plan under MOU, that it had met all of its obligations, and that the SCPOA had failed to exhaust available remedies. The trial court ultimately held that the County had “satisfied its obligations to meet and confer pursuant to “the MOU. The SCPOA subsequently appealed.

According to a subsection of the MOU, the County “reserves the right to convert assignments on the 12 Plan to either a 5/8 or 4/10 plan, upon the giving of forty-five (45) calendar day’s advance notice,” The SCPOA “shall be afforded the opportunity to meet and confer on such a proposed change prior to its implementation.”

The appellate court held that contrary to the County’s contention that the SCPOA waived its right to bargain because of the County’s “right to implement certain unilateral changes, “this right to implement the new work schedule did not amount to a waiver by the SCPOA to bargain the charges as they were negotiable under the MOU and state law. In addition , the appellate court determined that the County’s plan did not equate to a “business necessity,” and that the SCPOA was not bound by the MOU’s exhaustion-by-grievance requirement since the new work schedule was exempt under “ the meet and confer process”.

The appellate court disagreed with the Superior Court’s finding that the SCPOA, via its email vote, agreed to the County’s plan, but as the county “reserve[d] the right to convert assignments,” the SCPOA neither had a right to agree nor to force impasse resolution through a mediator. The appellate court also disagreed with the finding that the SCPOA’s preferred work schedule demonstrated that the County’s good faith. “[G}ood faith is a subjective attitude and requires a genuine desire to reach agreement.” As the implementation of the work schedule had been a right not needing agreement, it did not establish good faith. However, the appellate court likewise stated that neither party had acted in bad faith.

In response to the SCPOA’s argument that the County’s arbitrary deadline prevented the completion of the “meet and confer process”, the appellate court held “that neither the specified 45-day period or the date was an arbitrary deadline.” Advance written notice had been given and the date “coincide[d] with [the County’s] new fiscal year.” The SCPOA also pointed that the MOU did not permit “12-hour shift” or “the modified 12 Plan, “but the appellate court reasoned that “it is implicit that the county could offer…other formulas.”

The appellate court therefore, concluded that the County had met its obligations under the MOU and state law by giving the appropriate notice and meeting and conferring three times before implementing its proposal.

See: Santa Clara County Correctional Peace Officers Association, Inc. v. County of Santa Clara, 224 Cal. App. 4^th 1016 (Cal. Ct. App. 6^th. Dist. 2014).

Subscribe today

Already a subscriber? Login

Related legal case