In Rialto Police Benefit Association v. City of Rialto, (— Cal.Rptr.3d —, 2007 WL 2852202, Cal.App. 4 Dist., Oct. 3, 2007), a California Court of Appeal considered whether a city’s decision to contract with the county sheriff for law enforcement services, rather than to continue to employ its own police department, was subject to the meet and confer requirements of the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act (“MMBA”). Using the balancing test outlined in Building Material & Construction Teamsters’ Union v. Farrell (1986) 41 Cal.3d 651, the court found that the city’s decision was subject to the meet and confer requirements.
Facts
In 2005, the city council of Rialto (“City”) voted to contract with the San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department for law enforcement services, rather than to continue to employ its own city police department. The Rialto Police Benefit Association (“Police Union”), the bargaining representative of the employees of the Rialto Police Department, filed a lawsuit seeking to stop the City from implementing the contract claiming the City had failed to meet and confer with the Police Union as required by the MMBA. The trial court set aside the City’s decision and ordered the parties to meet and confer. The City appealed.
Decision
The court analyzed the language of the MMBA, stating that it requires the City and the Police Union to meet and confer over matters within the scope of representation, including, among other things, “wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment.” However, the MMBA also exempts from that requirement the “merits, necessity or organization of any service or activity provided by law or executive order.” Citing the Building Material balancing test, the court concluded the City’s action is within the scope of representation, and therefore subject to the meet and confer requirement, “only if the employer’s need for unencumbered decisionmaking in managing its operations is outweighed by the benefit to employer-employee relations of bargaining about the action in question.”
In this case, the court said, the City’s decision to contract with the sheriff’s department for law enforcement services clearly affected the “wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment” of the police department’s employees. Further, according to City staff reports, the City’s motivations for entering the contract included management strife, problems with the delivery of services, employee lawsuits and economic savings, all issues that could be addressed through bargaining with the Police Union, the court said.
In similar cases in which employers’ decisions were motivated by costs and other factors that could be addressed through collective bargaining, courts have held that such decisions were subject to mandatory bargaining. The Building Material balancing test therefore results in a finding that the City was required to meet and confer with the Police Union over its decision to enter into a contract for law enforcement services.
The trial court judgment was affirmed.