The Rule of Los Angeles County Professional Peace Officers Association v. County of Los Angeles is that a union's waiver of its right to meet and confer over an employer's outsourcing decision must be "clear and unmistakable," and vague management rights language stating the employer has "no obligation to negotiate the decision of any reorganization" does not satisfy this standard, under circumstances where the MOU discusses outsourcing procedures but does not expressly waive bargaining rights regarding the outsourcing decision itself.
Appeal from judgment after court trial in Superior Court, Los Angeles County.
Petitioner Appellant was Los Angeles County Professional Peace Officers Association (PPOA) — the exclusive bargaining representative for County security officers seeking to compel meet and confer negotiations over outsourcing decision.
Respondent was County of Los Angeles et al. — the public employer that refused to meet and confer over its decision to contract security work to a private company.
The suit sounded in labor law under the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act. PPOA sought writ of mandate compelling the County to meet and confer regarding its outsourcing decision.
The key substantive facts leading to the suit were that in May 2021, the County decided to outsource security work at Kenneth Hahn Hall of Administration from PPOA members to a private contractor. When PPOA requested to meet and confer about this decision, the County declined, asserting that Article 16 of their MOU waived PPOA's bargaining rights because it stated "Management shall have no obligation to negotiate the decision of any reorganization by the County during the life of this agreement."
The procedural result leading to the Appeal: The trial court denied PPOA's petition for writ of mandate, ruling that the County met its burden to prove waiver under Article 16 because "reorganization" as used in the MOU's management rights clause encompassed outsourcing decisions based on the dictionary definition and surrounding contractual context.
The key question(s) on Appeal: Whether Article 16 of the MOU contained a "clear and unmistakable" waiver of PPOA's statutory right under the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act to meet and confer over the County's decision to outsource bargaining unit work to a private contractor.
The Appellate Court held that the MOU did not contain a clear and unmistakable waiver of PPOA's right to meet and confer over outsourcing decisions because the management rights clause using the term "reorganization" was vague and ambiguous, did not expressly mention the statutory right being waived, and general management rights clauses function to preserve management prerogatives rather than waive collective bargaining rights over matters within the scope of representation like outsourcing.
The case is inapplicable when the MOU contains express language specifically waiving bargaining rights over outsourcing or contracting out decisions, when the contract language is unambiguous about waiving specific statutory rights, or when the employer's action falls outside the scope of mandatory bargaining subjects.
The case leaves open what specific contract language would constitute a clear and unmistakable waiver of outsourcing bargaining rights, and whether different factual circumstances regarding the timing and nature of outsourcing decisions might affect the analysis.
Counsel
For Appellant: Hayes, Ortega & Sanchez, Dennis J. Hayes
For Respondent: Miller Barondess, Mira Hashmall and Eleanor S. Ruth