Fear Not Law Articles: SACRAMENTO POLICE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION v. CITY OF SACRAMENTO

SACRAMENTO POLICE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION v

SACRAMENTO POLICE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION v. CITY OF SACRAMENTO

Filed 1/31/07

CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION

COPY

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT

(Sacramento)

SACRAMENTO POLICE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION,

Plaintiff and Appellant,

CITY OF SACRAMENTO et al.,

Defendants and Appellants.

C042493

C043377

(Super. Ct. No. 02CS01054)

OPINION ON REMAND

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Sacramento County, Trena Burger-Plavan, Judge. Case No. C042493 reversed with directions; case No. C043377 dismissed as moot.

Mastagni, Holstedt & Amick, Kasey Christopher Clark, David E. Mastagni and Adam J. Krolikowski, for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Samuel L. Jackson, City Attorney, Deborah R. Schulte, Senior Deputy City Attorney, for Defendants and Appellants.

Renne Sloan Holtzman & Sakai, Jeffrey Sloan, Felicia R. Reid and Charles D. Sakai for League of California Cities as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Defendants and Appellants.

At the behest of the plaintiff, Sacramento Police Officers Association (SPOA), the superior court issued a writ of mandate directing the defendants, City of Sacramento and Sacramento Police Department (collectively City), to â€

Description	City's proposal to hire retirees as temporary employees in response to an abrupt shortage in the staffing of the police force, which could not be remedied through the ordinary processes of recruitment and hiring, was a fundamental managerial policy decision designed to maintain the existing level of public safety in the community and was not itself subject to city's duty to meet and confer with union representing officers, even if it represented a change in the status quo with respect to the terms and conditions of employment. Where proposal included principle that nothing in its implementation was to affect the terms and conditions of employment of unit members, the details of implementation were not subject to the duty to meet and confer, and individual unit members who experienced detriment as a result of the proposal's implementation were entitled to whatever remedies existed under grievance process.
Rating	0/5 1 2 3 4 5 0/5 based on 0 votes.