Judge Thwarts Bid By San Jose Firefighters To Compel Three-Way Negotiations With Police, City

From The San Jose Mercury News, May 25

SAN JOSE, CA – San Jose firefighters have suffered a defeat in their battle to void a labor agreement between the city and its police officers on grounds that both public safety unions historically bargained together because they share a pension plan.

In a written May 19 decision that the city received Tuesday, Santa Clara County Superior Court Judge William Elfving denied the firefighters' bid to force three-way negotiations between San Jose and its police and fire unions. He also granted the city's request for arbitration with just the firefighters.

"It's pretty significant," said City Attorney Rick Doyle. "They were trying to stop the police and city agreement from going forward. The court said no."

San Jose firefighters President Randy Sekany and the union's lawyer, Christopher Platten, were not available for comment Wednesday.

The International Association of Firefighters union local 230 sued the city and the San Jose Police Officers Association on Feb. 10. The suit argued that a December labor contract between the city and police officers violated agreements dating to 1991 that the police and firefighter unions negotiate jointly with the city because of their shared pension plan.

The city and police officers said the agreement to negotiate together did not preclude one of the unions from reaching a separate labor deal.

The judge agreed and said the memorandum of agreement required three-way arbitration "only where the two unions are in agreement with each other on the one hand and against the city on the other hand."

"Because that situation does not exist here, the parties' arbitration agreement does not apply to the controversy presented by Local 230's petition."

The decision means that unless the firefighters appeal, they have lost the case. They will now have to either negotiate a separate deal with the city or have an arbitration panel craft one for them that covers salary, benefits and pension, Doyle said.

Negotiations have been at an impasse since the litigation began. The city made equal offers to both unions, including raising pensions for those who retire after 30 years to 90 percent of their final salary instead of the maximum 85 percent, which matches most public safety agencies in the state. But the firefighters balked.

"We made the same economic offer to them that we made to the police, and they said it wasn't enough," Assistant City Attorney George Rios said.

A related lawsuit filed Feb. 8 by the same firefighter union attorney on behalf of fire Battalion Chief Keith Keesling is scheduled for a hearing June 15. That lawsuit presents Keesling as a taxpayer and accuses the city of misappropriating public money in approving the police officers' labor agreement. The suit contends the city needs to have an actuary publicly assess the cost of increasing the police officers pension before approving it.

Doyle said the claim has become moot because the city since then has produced actuarial reports. "Our view is that there's nothing more to argue about," he said.