Vallejo Police Officers Ass'n v. City of Vallejo
Citation | 223 Cal.Rptr.3d 280,15 Cal.App.5th 601 |
Decision Date | 22 August 2017 |
Docket Number | A144987 |
Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Parties | VALLEJO POLICE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. CITY OF VALLEJO, Defendant and Respondent. |
Mastagni Holstedt, David E. Mastagni, Isaac S. Stevens, Tashayla D. Billington, Sacramento, for Appellant
Rosen Bien Galvan & Grunfeld LLP, Ernest Galvan, Margot Mendelson, Jenny S. Yelin, San Francisco, for Amici Curiae Los Angeles Retired Fire & Police Association, Inc., Retired Employees Association of Orange County, Sacramento Area Firefighters, International Association of Firefighters, Local 522, AFL-CIO, Palo Alto Firefighters, International Association Of Firefighters, Local 1319, AFL-CIO, Sacramento Police Officers' Association, Los Angeles Airport Peace Officers' Association, Sacramento County Deputy Sheriff's Association, San Mateo County Deputy Sheriff's Association
Messing Adam & Jasmine LLP, San Francisco, Gregg McLean, Adam Gary M. Messing for Amicus Curiae Coalition of Public Safety Labor Associations
Renne Sloan Holtzman Sakai LLP, Erich W. Shiners, Sacramento, Jonathan V. Holtzman, Charles D. Sakai, San Francisco, for Respondent
Liebert Cassidy Whitmore, Steven M. Berliner, Los Angeles, Michael D. Youril, Fresno, for Amicus Curiae League of California Cities
Miller, J.The Vallejo Police Officers Association (VPOA) petitioned the superior court for a writ of mandate alleging that the City of Vallejo (City) engaged in bad-faith bargaining in violation of state law and then unilaterally imposed contract terms that impaired VPOA members' vested rights to retiree medical benefits that covered insurance premiums up to the full cost of a Kaiser health plan. The superior court denied the petition, concluding that VPOA had not shown its members had a vested right to the full Kaiser premium and that the City had not bargained in bad faith; the court therefore declined to order the City to start new contract negotiations or to reinstate retirement medical benefits at the level previously provided to VPOA members. We will affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Faced with ever-increasing employee and retiree costs that led to operating deficits and the depletion of its general fund reserves, the City filed a petition for bankruptcy relief in May 2008. At that time, under its existing labor agreement with the VPOA, the City paid the full premium cost for retirees and employees of any medical plan offered through the California Public Employees' Retirement System (CalPERS or PERS) Health Plan Services Division. The City likewise paid the full premium for other City retirees. By virtue of offering medical benefits through CalPERS, the City is subject to PEMHCA (the Public Employees' Medical and Hospital Care Act; Gov. Code, § 22750 et seq. ), which governs the CalPERS health benefit system. (See Bernard v. City of Oakland (2012) 202 Cal.App.4th 1553, 1557, 1559-1560, 136 Cal.Rptr.3d 578 [ ].) PEMHCA establishes a minimum level of employer contribution toward medical premiums, and generally requires the employer to contribute the same amount for employees and retirees. ( Gov. Code, § 22892, subds. (b) & (c).)
In June 2008, the City filed a motion seeking approval from the bankruptcy court to reject its agreements with the VPOA and three other unions, and while the motion was pending, the City negotiated with the VPOA to modify the VPOA labor agreement. In late January 2009, before the scheduled hearing on the motion, the VPOA and the City reached agreement on a new contract (the January 2009 Supplemental Agreement, or 2009 Agreement), and the City voluntarily dismissed the bankruptcy court motion to reject as to the VPOA. ( In re City of Vallejo, CA (E.D. Cal. 2010) 432 B.R. 262, 265-266.)
A central issue in this case is how to interpret the 2009 Agreement, under which health insurance benefits were reduced from full coverage for any CalPERS plan to coverage capped at 100 percent of the rate for coverage through Kaiser. The 2009 Agreement includes the following provisions for health insurance:
The parties disagree about how to interpret paragraph 6.A.3, which concerns medical premiums for retirees who were hired before February 1, 2009. The City argues that paragraph 6.A.3 requires it to provide a retiree the same direct PEMHCA contribution it provides to an active employee. The VPOA argues that paragraph 6.A.3 requires the City to provide a retiree full premium coverage, up to 100 percent of the rate for coverage through Kaiser. Apparently, the parties' disagreement did not come to light until the time came to negotiate a replacement agreement, perhaps because both interpretations led to the same result while the 2009 Agreement was in effect: the total amount for medical premiums paid to an active employee was the full premium for the plan that the active employee selected, capped at the amount charged by Kaiser for coverage at the particular level of coverage (the Kaiser rate), and that amount was paid as a direct PEMHCA contribution. Accordingly, the retirement medical benefit during the term of the 2009 Agreement, for current employees and for existing retirees, was the full premium for the selected plan, capped at the Kaiser rate.
Under the 2009 Agreement, employees hired on or after February 1, 2009, are subject to a "vesting requirement" of 10 years of service with the City, pursuant to paragraph 6.A.4. Once that requirement is met, those new employees are entitled to retirement benefits in the amount provided to retirees who were hired before February 1, 2009.
The 2009 Agreement extended the VPOA's labor contract with the City to June 30, 2012 "and from year-to-year thereafter, unless either part[y] shall have given written notice to the other of its desire to amend or terminate the Agreement not less than six (6) months prior to June 30, 2012, or any subsequent anniversary date of the Agreement."
The City exited bankruptcy in 2011.
Starting in June 2012, and continuing through December 6, 2013, representatives of the City and the VPOA had discussions and negotiations about a labor agreement to supersede the 2009 Agreement. From the beginning of the discussions, the City's negotiators told the VPOA that the City's top priority was to reduce its liability for retiree medical costs, and that the City would be seeking agreements with all its unions to reduce the City's retiree medical premium contribution to $300 per month. The reduction would be consistent with the "General Fund Five-Year Business Plan," which the City issued in November 2010 in the course of the bankruptcy, and which included "[r]retiree health cost projections" that assumed the City would be able to "negotiate and implement a $300 per month city-paid retiree health benefit for current and future retirees." The VPOA maintained that "each member hired prior to the effective date of an agreement, including retired members, maintains a vested right to his/her retirement medical benefit," and that therefore current employees and retirees had a vested right to retiree medical benefits capped at the Kaiser rate, as reflected in the 2009 Agreement.
After months of discussions and negotiations, the City declared impasse in September 2013 and gave its "last, best, and final offer" to the VPOA.2 In October 2013, the VPOA filed a petition in the superior court for writ of mandate, declaratory relief and injunctive relief, alleging that the City was not bargaining in good faith and was therefore violating the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act (MMBA; Gov. Code, § 3500 et seq. ).3 The VPOA sought a declaration that its members had "a vested constitutional right to a defined retirement medical benefit that provides [them] an amount necessary to pay the entire cost of the member's retirement medical premium up to the cost of the [Kaiser rate]." The City filed a demurrer, which was set for hearing in ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Cal Fire Local 2881 v. Cal. Pub. Employees' Ret. Sys.
...in fact entered) into bilateral contracts to govern the employment relationship"]; Vallejo Police Officers Ass’n v. City of Vallejo (2017) 15 Cal.App.5th 601, 612, 223 Cal.Rptr.3d 280 ( Vallejo Police ) ["Like other contracts, MOU’s [memoranda of understanding] ordinarily cover distinct per......
-
Rose v. Cnty. of San Benito
...county to contract with CalPERS. PEMHCA governs the CalPERS health benefit system. ( Vallejo Police Officers Assn. v. City of Vallejo (2017) 15 Cal.App.5th 601, 606, 223 Cal.Rptr.3d 280 ( Vallejo Police ).) It authorizes state agencies and local governments to contract with CalPERS to provi......
- People v. Trujillo
-
Doe v. Uber Techs., Inc.
...upon the specificity of the representation at issue, as well as other factors. (See, e.g., Vallejo Police Officers Assn. v. City of Vallejo (2017) 15 Cal.App.5th 601, 620, 223 Cal.Rptr.3d 280 [where there was "no evidence of any specific promise" in extra-contractual representations, those ......
-
Public Sector Case Notes
...Failed to Prove Any Vested Right to a Particular Amount of City-Paid Medical Premium Vallejo Police Officers Ass'n v. City of Vallejo, 15 Cal. App. 5th 601 (2017)The case arose between the City of Vallejo (City) and the Vallejo Police Officers Association (VPOA) during the parties' negotiat......