Dixon Police Officers Ass'n v. City of Dixon
| Decision Date | 13 September 2019 |
| Docket Number | C086611 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | DIXON POLICE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. CITY OF DIXON, Defendant and Appellant. |
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
Defendant and appellant City of Dixon (City) appeals from an order confirming an arbitration decision in favor of plaintiff and respondent Dixon Police Officers Association (DPOA). The City contends the arbitrator's decision was only advisory under the provisions of the "City of Dixon Personnel Rules" (Personnel Rules). The City also appeals from an award of $900 in sanctions the trial court imposed when the City filed a motion to dismiss DPOA's confirmation petition that was substantially identical to its opposition to DPOA's petition, and then declined to withdraw the motion after the trial court ruled in favor of the petition.
We find that the trial court correctly interpreted the Personnel Rules in determining that the arbitrator's decision was final and binding. We further conclude that court did not err in imposing sanctions on the City for insisting on a hearing on a motion to present arguments the trial court had already rejected.
The judgment is affirmed.
The Personnel Rules govern all City employees. The rules set forth separate sections on disciplinary procedure, disciplinary appeal procedure, and grievance procedure.
Section 4.10, disciplinary procedure, details the procedures for imposing discipline on City employees, including employee representation during the disciplinary process, notice of proposed disciplinary action, a "Skelly" meeting affording an employee an opportunity to respond to misconduct charges,1 and a written order implementing any discipline.2 Discipline may consist of an oral reprimand, a written reprimand, suspension without pay for up to 30 days, demotion, or termination. Only disciplinary action consisting of suspension, demotion, or termination is appealable.
Section 4.11, disciplinary appeal procedure, lays out the steps to appeal suspension, demotion, or termination. These include a written request for an appeal(Section 4.11), selection of a hearing officer (Section 4.11.1), and conduct of the hearing and the decision (Section 4.11.2).
Section 4.11.2 provides that the appeal hearing is an evidentiary hearing with due process rights, including the right to present evidence, the right to examine and cross-examine witnesses, the right to legal counsel, findings by the hearing officer to support the decision, and a decision within the 30 days. Formal rules of evidence do not apply and the hearing officer may rely "upon any evidence that reasonable persons would commonly rely upon in the course of conduct of their business."
Section 4.11.2 further provides:
Section 4.12, grievance procedure, sets forth procedures for resolution of grievances. Section 4.12.2 defines a grievance as "a complaint of one or a group of employees or dispute between the City and an Exclusively Recognized Employee Organization involving the interpretation, application, or enforcement of the express terms of these Rules or a Memorandum of Understanding." DPOA is a recognized employee organization that executed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) on behalf of its members with the City, which the city council approved.3 Section 4.12.2 further provides that,
The grievance process begins with an informal procedure, consisting of a discussion of the grievance between the employee and supervisor followed by four levels of formal procedure. Level I of the formal procedure, Section 4.12.4.1, involves an employee filing a written grievance and the employee's supervisor providing written answer. Level II, Section 4.12.4.2, is an appeal to the department head by an employee dissatisfied with the Level I outcome, involving an investigation, potentially a meeting with the parties concerned, and a written answer provided by the department head to the employee. Level III, Section 4.12.4.3, escalates the appeal to the city manager, who follows the same procedure as the department head in Level II. At Level III, the city manager's written answer is "final and binding unless appealed." In addition, if appealed, the "City Manager may affirm, modify, reverse, or otherwise resolve the decision appealed."
Level IV, Section 4.12.4.4, sets forth the final internal appellate process, which commences with a request by the employee for "a hearing before an arbitrator." Section 4.12.4.4 provides that "[g]rievance arbitrations shall be conducted according to the rules of disciplinary matters as defined in section 4.11."
Section 4.12.4.4 concludes:
The dispute that led to a Level IV arbitration between the City and DPOA concerned the interpretation of article 2.1.3 of the MOU providing that "[s]hould the Dixon Professional Firefighters Association receive an increase in their Salary, the DPOA unit members will receive the same increase in addition to the three percent (3%)above."4 In July 2016 the firefighters received a "step" increase that the City maintained did not require a concomitant increase for DPOA under article 2.1.3 of the MOU, arguing that this provision only applied to "base salary," not additional "step" increases. DPOA initiated a formal grievance process, which led to a Level IV arbitration.
At the hearing, the City advised the arbitrator that, under Section 4.11 of the Personnel Rules, the arbitrator's decision was advisory. DPOA argued that the arbitrator's decision was final under Section 4.12.4.4.
The arbitrator determined that the City violated article 2.1.3 of the MOU in failing to match the 5 percent increase provided to the firefighters. While not expressly determining the parties' competing positions on the finality of the decision, the arbitrator's order stated, "City of Dixon Personnel Rule Section 4.12.4.4 provides '[a]ny decision and/or order of the arbitrator shall be final.' "
The City issued a modified award reversing the arbitrator's decision. The City asserted that the Personnel Rules state that
DPOA filed a petition in the trial court to confirm the arbitrator's award pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1285, arguing that the arbitrator's decision was final and should be confirmed and judgment entered accordingly. DPOA maintained that thearbitrator's decision was final and binding under Section 4.12.4.4 and the time had run for the City to challenge that decision.
The City filed an opposition arguing that Code of Civil Procedure section 1285 was inapposite because the arbitrator's decision was advisory and not a binding arbitration award. Two days later, the City filed a motion to dismiss DPOA's petition making substantially the same arguments.
The trial court granted DPOA's petition to confirm the arbitrator's decision. The court reasoned that Section 4.12.4.4, which states that the arbitration shall be "conducted" pursuant to Section 4.11 procedures, refers to selection of the arbitrator and presentation of evidence. The language in Section 4.11.2 regarding the advisory nature of the decision refers to the "effect" of the outcome in a disciplinary proceeding, not the conduct of the hearing. Section 4.12.4.4, by contrast, states the arbitrator's ultimate decision in a grievance proceeding is "final," not advisory. The trial court also observed that Section 4.11.2 provides that city manager may modify a hearing officer's decision regarding "disciplinary action," but a grievance is not disciplinary action. Finally, the court noted that the city manager may modify a department head's decision at Level III of the grievance procedure, and, unless appealed to Level IV, the city manager's Level III decision is final. The trial court concluded that it would make no sense for the city manager to have the power to change the decision at Level III and Level IV.
The City's motion to dismiss was set for hearing subsequent to the hearing and order of the trial court on DPOA's petition to confirm the arbitration award. The City kept the motion on calendar, despite DPOA's request that the City withdraw the motion in light of the court's order granting the petition. DPOA filed a short opposition to the motion to dismiss, which included a request for sanctions under Code of Civil Procedure section 128.5. DPOA argued the City's motion to dismiss a petition that the court had already granted was totally without merit. The City filed an equally short...
To continue reading
Request your trial