e-Bulletin: BB&K Attorneys Win California Supreme Court Case Impacting Public Agency "Meet-and-Confer" Requirements

In a unanimous decision, the California Supreme Court recently held that a city was not required by the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act (MMBA) to meet and confer with a police officers’ union prior to requiring its police officers to complete a racial profiling worksheet during traffic stops. The ruling is a victory for the City of Claremont, which was represented by BB&K attorneys Jeff Dunn and Sonia Carvalho.

The Court concluded that the Claremont Police Department did not violate state labor law by implementing a racial profiling study without negotiating the policy with the police officers' union. The Court ruled that the policy did not have a significant adverse effect on the officers' compensation or working conditions, and thus did not fall under the "meet-and-confer" requirements of Government Code Section 3505-part of the MMBA, which requires local government employers and employee representatives to discuss changes in working conditions before they are implemented.

Following a controversial officer-involved shooting in 1999, the Claremont City Council and Police Department launched a study to help determine if police officers were engaging in racial profiling. The policy in question required officers to fill out a short form for every vehicle stop, answering questions regarding the driver's gender, race or ethnicity, and location and reason for the traffic stop.

The Claremont Police Officers Association challenged the implementation of the policy, arguing that the MMBA required the City to "meet and confer" before giving a policy direction they claimed would adversely affect officers' working conditions. The Los Angeles Superior Court sided with the City, but the Court of Appeal reversed the decision.

On appeal to the California Supreme Court, BB&K attorneys disputed the police union's claim. They maintained that the City was exempt from the "meet-and-confer" rule under the MMBA's Section 3505, which gives local government agencies the right to make and implement fundamental policy and operation decisions. The BB&K team also argued that each survey would take no more than two minutes on average, with 4-6 forms completed per shift, creating only a minimal impact on the officers' working conditions. The Supreme Court agreed that the policy did not have a "significant and adverse" effect on officers' working conditions.

The Supreme Court clarified the test to determine when parties must meet and confer under the Act. If the management action does not have "a significant and adverse effect on the wages, hours, or working conditions of the bargaining-unit employees," the parties are not required to meet and confer. Even if the management action does have a significant and adverse effect, the parties still are not required to meet and confer unless the effect arises merely from the implementation of the larger policy decision. Finally, if the management action has a significant and adverse effect on the employees, and the effect arises from the action, the court balances the public agency's need for unencumbered decision-making with the potential benefits from the bargaining process. If the balance favors the public agency, the parties are not required to meet and confer.

For more details on this decision, or its implications on your agency, contact an attorney with BB&K's Municipal Law Practice Group.

Disclaimer: BB&K eBulletins are not intended as legal advice. Additional facts or future developments may affect subjects contained herein. Seek the advice of an attorney before acting or relying upon any information in this communiqué. ©2006 Best Best & Krieger LLP