COURT
GRANTS TRO AGAINST DISCRIMINATORY
SERGEANT'S
EXAM
The San Luis Obispo POA
and its leadership was granted a Temporary Restraining Order recently to
prevent the department from approving, certifying, appointing or taking
any further action to implement the certification and appointment of
promotional candidates for the sergeant's classification. The TRO
included as well, questioning, inquiring or otherwise discussing with
police department employees their political and association
affiliations, beliefs, opinions or support. Judge James Slater also
ordered the department not to engage in any retaliatory harassing or
punitive actions against any member of the San Luis Obispo POA for the
exercise of their organizational, associational and individual freedoms
of expression.
The Legal Defense Fund
assisted the POA in this action based on LDF’s long-standing
commitment against retaliation for association activity. The dispute
arises out of a police sergeant's promotional exam that asks, "What
is your assessment of the relationship of the department management and
the San Luis Obispo Police Officers Association?" Given the less
than friendly relationship between the POA and the chief, this question
was widely perceived as a provocation by the department.
The California Supreme
Court has recognized that public employees have a right to engage in
union activities without fear of reprisal or sanctions. See Social
Workers Union Local 535 v. Alameda County Welfare Department, 11 Cal
3d 382 (1974). A well established rule of federal labor law prohibits
employers from discriminating against employees for their union
activities. See Radio Officers v. National Labor Relations Board
(A.H. Bull Steamship Company), 347 US 17 (1954).
California courts have
followed this rule and prohibit discrimination against employees for
their decision to join, participate and advocate on behalf of their
union. See Santa Clara County Council Attorneys Association v.
Woodside, 7 Cal 4(superscript: th) 525 (1994).
The California Supreme
Court found that over the history of labor-management relations
"the inherent threat to union activism posed by employer
interrogation has been well documented." See Social Workers,
11 Cal 3d at 388, "scores of judicial decisions on both the state
and federal levels, attest to the potentially coercive and intimidating
effect of employer inquiries into an individual employees union
activities." Id. citing Petri Cleaners Inc. v. Automotive
Employees, 53 Cal 2d 455, 460 (1960).
The association argued
that the sergeant's position is merely to oversee the day-to-day
operations of police officers, direct training, identify crime patterns,
and solicit input about departmental procedures. Thus, any inquiry about
union activities does not relate to the job duties of a police sergeant
and instead is directed at intimidating police officers from active
participation in the union.
The Legal Defense Fund
will continue to follow and report on this important case.
LDF Home Page | News
Article Index
