By Kerianne Steele and Alejandro Delgado
Kerianne Steele is a shareholder of Wei nberg, Roger & Rosenfeld. She provides general representation to labor unions, primarily in the public sector. Alejandro Delgado is an Associate in the Los Angeles office of Weinberg, Roger & Rosenfeld. He represents and advises public sector unions in all aspects of labor and employment law. The authors wish to thank their colleagues Abel Rodriguez and Corey Kniss for their contributions to this column.
County of Fresno v. Fresno Deputy Sheriff's Ass'n, 51 Cal. App. 5th 282 (2020)
The Fifth District Court of Appeal held that Fresno County's decision to reassign deputies from special assignments to patrol units did not violate the express terms of the memorandum of understanding (MOU), which granted the County the right to assign and reassign deputies, and that consideration of past practice was not required to determine whether the County had violated its obligation to negotiate a change in practice when it reassigned deputies.
The Fresno Deputy Sheriff's Association (Association) filed a grievance challenging the involuntary reassignment of two sheriff's deputies from their specialty assignments to patrol assignments. The Association argued that the reassignments violated both the MOU between the County and the Association and an established past practice that deputies would not be involuntarily reassigned in the absence of disciplinary issues, documented performance issues, layoffs, or pending disability retirement. The Association prevailed at the labor arbitration. The County filed a petition for an administrative writ of mandate to reverse the decision, and the trial court granted the petition. The Association and the deputies appealed.
The court of appeal affirmed. The court held that the appellants did not establish that the County had violated the express terms of the MOU. According to the court, the management rights clause in the MOU granted the County the right to assign and reassign deputies without limiting the reassignment to cases of discipline, poor performance, and other similar issues. On this basis, the court found that the County did not violate the express written terms of the MOU by reassigning the deputies involuntarily, even in the absence of disciplinary issues, documented performance issues, layoffs, or pending disability retirement.
The court also held that there was no need to consider the past practices of the...
