ALADS represents deputies who work for the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department. The Office of the Inspector General (OIG), acting under a County ordinance and Penal Code sections 13670 and 13510.8, was investigating alleged law enforcement gang affiliations and wanted to compel interviews with 35 deputies. Deputies would be required to disclose tattoos and provide information about gang affiliations. Sheriff Robert Luna reinforced the directive, warning that refusal to comply could result in termination.
ALADS argued that the directive to answer questions, show tattoos, and identify colleagues, constituted a significant change in employment conditions, and triggered the County’s obligation to negotiate under the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act (MMBA).
ALADS filed a claim with the County’s Employee Relations Commission (ERCOM) and simultaneously sought injunctive relief in superior court. The trial court ruled that: 1) ALADS had shown a likelihood that it would prevail on its ultimate claim; and 2) the OIG’s interviews constituted a significant and adverse change to deputies’ terms and conditions of employment. Therefore, injunctive relief was proper to prevent irreparable harm. The County appealed.
The California Court of Appeal agreed with the trial court. The Court explained that the OIG’s directive, while a legitimate managerial decision, impacted employment conditions significantly enough to require bargaining. The Court drew parallels to prior cases in which similar directives—such as mandatory drug testing or changes in disciplinary rules—triggered the duty to meet and confer regarding the impacts of managerial decisions.
The Court noted that the interviews, which could lead to disciplinary action or decertification, created new grounds for discipline under the recently enacted Penal Code sections. It held that these effects were subject to the MMBA’s meet-and-confer requirements. The Court concluded that the County was obligated to negotiate before implementing the interviews, and issued an injunction.
The Court rejected the County’s argument that its investigatory powers under Penal Code section 13670 exempted it from negotiating. It noted that while the Penal Code mandates investigations into law enforcement gangs, it does not override the MMBA’s requirements. The interviews would impose obligations on deputies to disclose sensitive information and identify colleagues, and therefore raised substantial employment and disciplinary concerns.
The court also considered ERCOM’s previous decisions, which supported ALADS’ position. The court found them persuasive in determining that the County’s actions violated the MMBA.
The Court upheld the trial court’s finding that the failure to negotiate would irreparably harm ALADS’ ability to represent its members. The Court acknowledged the public interest in addressing law enforcement gangs, but found no compelling need to bypass the negotiation process. It noted that the injunction preserved the status quo while allowing the County to proceed with bargaining or adjudicate the labor dispute through ERCOM.
Association For Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs v. County of Los Angeles, 2024 Cal.App. LEXIS 738.