CLAREMONT POLICE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION v. CITY OF CLAREMONT
CLAREMONT POLICE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION v. CITY OF CLAREMONT
CLAREMONT POLICE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION v. CITY OF CLAREMONT 08:15:2006
CLAREMONT POLICE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION v. CITY OF CLAREMONT
Filed 8/14/06
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA
CLAREMONT POLICE OFFICERS )
ASSOCIATION, )
)
Plaintiff and Appellant, )
) S120546
v. )
) Ct.App. 2/3 B163219
CITY OF CLAREMONT et al., )
) Los Angeles County
Defendants and Respondents. ) Super. Ct. No. KS007219
__________________________________ )
In this case, we consider a provision of the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act (MMBA) (Gov. Code,[1] § 3500 et seq.), which governs labor-management relations at the local government level. Section 3505 mutually obligates a public employer and an employee organization to meet and confer in good faith about a matter within the â€
Description
Under Meyers-Milias-Brown Act--which governs labor-management relations at the local government level and requires that a city meet and confer with an employee association about a matter within the scope of representation concerning, among other things, wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment but provides an exception for fundamental managerial or policy decisions, which are deemed to be outside scope of representation--city was not required to meet and confer with the police officer's association before implementing study of racial profiling that required officers on all vehicle stops to complete a preprinted form that included questions regarding the driver's perceived race/ethnicity and the officers' prior knowledge of driver's race/ethnicity. The form is to take two minutes to complete. There is no obligation to meet and confer with regard to a management action that lacks a significant and adverse effect on the wages, hours, or working conditions of the bargaining-unit employees. If an action taken to implement a fundamental managerial or policy decision has a significant and adverse effect on the wages, hours, or working conditions of the employees, the action is within the scope of representation only if the employer's need for unencumbered decision making in managing its operations is outweighed by the benefit to employer-employee relations of bargaining about the action in question.
