Rains Lucia Stern St. Phalle & Silver

California's premier full-service law firm with an emphasis on the representation of peace officers in disciplinary, criminal, labor, workers' compensation, personal injury and other civil matters.

  • About Us
  • Practice Areas
    • Labor Representation
    • Civil Litigation
    • Personal Injury
      • Example of Case Results
    • Workers’ Compensation
    • Maritime Law
    • Estate Planning
    • DOE Security Clearance Hearings
    • Peace Officers
    • Firefighters
    • EMS Agency Investigations
    • Criminal Defense
    • CalPERS Appeals
  • Our Team
  • Classes
  • Media
    • Bulletins
    • RLS in the News
  • Resources
    • Links
    • Resources
    • Newsletters
  • Clients
  • Career Opportunities
  • Contact Us
  • Disclaimer

Palo Alto police attack plan to end arbitration

July 27, 2010 by David Shirley

From: Palo Alto Online News

Gennady Sheyner, 7/27/10

Palo Alto’s police officers have joined the firefighters union in opposing the city’s effort to erase the binding-arbitration provision from the City Charter.

The provision, enacted by city voters in 1978, enables an arbitration panel to settle labor disputes between the city and its public-safety employees.

Members of the City Council said Monday night that arbitration panels have historically favored labor groups over the city and argued that the provision makes it impossible for the council to control the city’s spiking employee costs.

The council is scheduled to vote Aug. 2 on whether to place the repeal on the November ballot.

So far, the council’s discussion on binding arbitration had focused on the firefighters union, which will have its own initiative on the November ballot. The initiative, spearheaded by Palo Alto Professional Firefighters, Local 1319, would require the city to hold an election any time it wants to reduce the staffing level in the Fire Department or close a fire station.

On Monday night, the attorney for the Palo Alto Police Officers’ Association (PAPOA) submitted a letter to City Manager James Keene stating the union’s opposition to the proposed measure and calling the city’s attack on binding arbitration “misguided.”

Rockne A. Lucia Jr., of Rains Lucia Stern, PC, criticized the city for not consulting with the police union before launching into a discussion of binding arbitration.

“Given the Association’s demonstrated willingness to work in unison with City leaders, the current discussions concerning the repeal of binding arbitration are simply unfathomable,” Lucia wrote.

Sgt. Wayne Benitez, president of PAPOA, said the union didn’t want to get involved in the ongoing dispute between the council and the firefighters union. In recent months, the council criticized the firefighters union for refusing to make concessions to help the city close its projected fiscal year 2010 deficit.

The police union, by contrast, offered to defer its negotiated 6 percent raise for two years in a row.

“The city forced us into making a decision and our decision is to fight this,” Benitez told the Weekly Monday.

The council Monday night couldn’t reach a firm decision on whether to place the repeal on the November ballot, with several members indicating that they need more information.

Councilwoman Gail Price said she opposes the measure to eliminate binding arbitration, while Councilman Greg Scharff said he strongly supports it. Councilman Larry Klein said he opposed binding arbitration, but said it might be better to wait a little longer before placing the issue in front of the voters.

Scharff called repealing binding arbitration “the single biggest thing we can do to control our runaway pension costs and to get our labor costs under control.

“As a city, we try to achieve equity for our employee groups,” Scharff said. “To achieve that, we need to remove binding arbitration from our charter.”

Price said the city is moving too fast on what would be a very significant change. She said the city’s rush to change the charter makes it seem as if the proposed repeal is “retribution for the firefighter’s initiative.” She also said she is worried about the “ricochet impact,” as it relates to the police officers.

“The speed in which we’re moving and discussing this causes me great concern,” Price said.

Attorney Alan C. Davis, writing at the request of the recently formed Palo Alto Police Managers Association, stating that members of the managers association “do not understand why there has been any interest in repealing the provisions of Article V of the Palo Alto City Charter which applies to represented police officers as well as to firefighters.”

He said the association “is aware of the anger engendered among some members of the City Council regarding the staffing initiative measure sponsored by friends of the Palo Alto Firefighters Union,” Davis wrote. “The Palo Alto Police Managers Association has not endorsed and is not involved in that initiative measure.”

Davis said the council has a legal obligation to confer with the union before discussing binding arbitration and urged the council not to repeal the provision.

Councilman Sid Espinosa said the proposed repeal is not an effort to get back at the firefighters union but the beginning of an important conversation about the city’s process for negotiations with its labor groups.

“This is not an issue of retribution,” Espinosa said. “It’s not tied to the initiative that was put on the ballot.”

Klein said the binding-arbitration provision is “undemocratic.”

“It takes the decision out of the hands of the people’s elected representatives and passes it to someone who no one in Palo Alto may know and who has no responsibility to the people in Palo Alto,” Klein said. “This person may impose a decision on us that the community can’t live with.

“That’s a power I don’t like.”

Benitez disputed the city’s claim that binding arbitration is driving up employee costs. The last time the city and the police unions went to arbitration was about 15 years ago, and the city prevailed, Benitez said.

Tony Spitaleri, president of Palo Alto Professional Firefighters, Local 1319, also wrote a letter to Keene saying that arbitration measures “have unfairly become a whipping boy because of concerns the City of Palo Alto and other municipalities have over financial constraints imposed by the ongoing recession.”

Lucia, who represents PAPOA, asked the city officials to take no action on binding arbitration. If the city proceeds to place the measure on the ballot without properly notifying the union, PAPOA could sue the city for its failure to “meet and confer” with the police union before considering binding arbitration, he wrote.

“The Association remains a willing partner in addressing the City’s current economic condition, and is prepared to continue working in a cooperative effort with the city on any matter of mutual concern,” Lucia wrote.

“However, given the significance of the discussion scheduled for this evening’s council meeting, and the city’s failure to initiate any communication on this subject with the Association, the Palo Alto Police Officers’ Association cannot stand idly should the City continue to neglect its obligations under state law.

“In the event that the city fails to comply with this request, please know that the Association is prepared to seek the assistance of the courts to enforce its rights under the law.”

Palo Alto City Attorney Gary Baum said Monday night that the city isn’t legally required to meet and confer with the unions on this subject.

Filed Under: RLS In The News Tagged With: rockne-a-lucia-jr

Consultation Form

Offices across California to serve you.
Contact us now to schedule a consultation.
Contact form not loading? Click here!
Rains Lucia Stern St. Phalle & Silver, PC publishes this website as a service to our clients and other friends for informational purposes only. It is not intended to be used as a substitute for specific legal advice or opinions, and the transmission of information through this website is not intended to create an attorney-client relationship between sender and receiver. Internet subscribers and online readers should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel.

© 2023 Rains Lucia Stern St. Phalle & Silver, PC. All Rights Reserved. | Disclaimer

We use cookies on our website to give you the most relevant experience by remembering your preferences and repeat visits. By clicking “Accept”, you consent to the use of ALL the cookies.
Do not sell my personal information.
Cookie settingsACCEPTREJECT
Privacy & Cookies Policy

Privacy Overview

This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these cookies, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. But opting out of some of these cookies may have an effect on your browsing experience.
Necessary
Always Enabled
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information.
Non-necessary
Any cookies that may not be particularly necessary for the website to function and is used specifically to collect user personal data via analytics, ads, other embedded contents are termed as non-necessary cookies. It is mandatory to procure user consent prior to running these cookies on your website.
SAVE & ACCEPT
  • Contact Us

  • News Alerts

Official logo for Rains Lucia Stern St. Phalle & Silver
Rains Lucia Stern St. Phalle & Silver Logo
  • About Us
  • Practice Areas
    ▼
    • Labor Representation
    • Civil Litigation
    • Personal Injury
      ▼
      • Example of Case Results
    • Workers’ Compensation
    • Maritime Law
    • Estate Planning
    • DOE Security Clearance Hearings
    • Peace Officers
    • Firefighters
    • EMS Agency Investigations
    • Criminal Defense
    • CalPERS Appeals
  • Our Team
  • Classes
  • Media
    ▼
    • Bulletins
    • RLS in the News
  • Resources
    ▼
    • Links
    • Resources
    • Newsletters
  • Clients
  • Career Opportunities
  • Contact Us
  • Disclaimer
Hotline phone numbers. Northern California: 925-609-1699. Southern California: 310-393-1486.