The Meyers-Milias-Brown Act (MMBA)—the California law that mandates that counties and special districts—refers to it as "meeting and conferring in good. M, in which PERB found that the City of Sacramento violated the MMBA by failing to meet and confer before it eliminated the Supervising. The MMBA requires public entities to meet and confer in good faith over all matters relating to employment conditions and employer-employee relations.
If you have any questions, comments, requests, or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact us. We will respond to your submission at our earliest opportunity. Dec 1, As ofthere were only 14 members in the PCU.
The memorandum of understanding between the PCU and the City provides that although the City has the right to institute layoffs, it must meet with the PCU to discuss alternatives prior to instituting any layoffs.
In Januarythe City hired a new chief of police. Shortly thereafter, the new chief notified the PCU's legal counsel that he intended to reorganize the Department's command staff. The reorganization would eliminate the captain and four lieutenant positions, and would create two new division commander positions sworn positions and one administrative services manager position an unsworn position.
The chief of police also stated that, pursuant to the MOU, he was requesting to discuss the matter, and that the reorganization would take effect on July 1, The PCU's legal counsel responded via email and asked if the Department was attempting to meet and confer. The Department's legal counsel responded that reorganization was a management right and not subject to collective bargaining, but that the City intended to meet and confer regarding the impact of the reorganization.
At a labor meeting at the end of Marchthe PCU indicated that it was willing to make concessions but asked what was going on with the reorganization plan.
The city manager said they were completely different issues. At the following meeting, the city manager told PCU leadership that the reorganization would take place, and that the PCU had no right to offer a response to the plan. Under the plan, the current captain would bump down to one of the new commander positions, and the current lieutenants would compete for the other commander position.
The current lieutenants were eligible to bump down to sergeant positions, and the sergeants could bump down to corporal positions.
At least one employee, a lieutenant, would be laid off unless hired into the unsworn position. The City notified the affected employees of the changes to their employment status. The PCU, along with two lieutenants and one sergeant, filed a petition for writ of mandate against the City and the chief of police.
Labor Relations: The Meet and Confer Process | Workbooks | Liebert Cassidy Whitmore
The trial court granted the PCU a preliminary injunction. The PCU argued that the reorganization was not motivated by financial concerns, but was concocted to eliminate the PCU bargaining unit, as the reorganization would reduce the number of eligible command staff from 14 to 9.
The court granted the permanent injunction, enjoining the City from implementing the reorganization plan or laying off, terminating, or demoting any PCU members. The injunction could not be dissolved until the City fully complied with its meet and confer obligations. The court also found that the PCU was the prevailing party for purposes of attorney's fees, and that the PCU was entitled to attorney's fees in the "amount of actual expenditures. It then filed a motion to dissolve the permanent injunction on the basis that it had conducted seven meet and confer sessions with the PCU, which resulted in an agreement on the structure and impact of the reorganization.
For instance, the three commander positions would have the same pay grade as the lieutenant pay grade, and could be filled by three current lieutenants.
The court granted the motion and ordered the injunction dissolved. The Chief also wrote that the plan would become effective July 1,and pursuant to Section 7.
The City replied that it was only going to meet and confer with respect to the impact of the reorganization, which was not yet final, and not whether the reorganization was going to take place. On April 19,the City provided the affected employees with written notification of the changes to their employment under the plan. In Maythe PCU brought an action against the City in superior court seeking issuance of a writ of mandate and injunctive relief preventing the implementation of the reorganization plan.
The trial court ruled that the MMBA meet and confer requirements applied and that the City failed to satisfy its meet and confer obligations.
Second, if so, had the City fulfilled its meet and confer obligations? Addressing the application of the MMBA, the court took note of its scope and purpose. Under the Act, a public agency is required to notify and offer to meet and confer with the recognized employee organization affected by an ordinance, rule, resolution or regulation directly relating to the scope of representation which encompasses conditions of employment and employer-employee relations.
In order to trigger application of the MMBA, the employer action must have a significant effect on the terms and conditions of employment of the members of the bargaining unit. This includes the transfer of work away from the bargaining unit to a non-bargaining unit.