{"id":145,"date":"2026-04-10T12:00:00","date_gmt":"2026-04-10T12:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/california.shuster.info\/?p=145"},"modified":"2026-04-10T12:00:00","modified_gmt":"2026-04-10T12:00:00","slug":"la-county-ppoa-outsourcing-clear-unmistakable-waiver-bargain","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/california.shuster.info\/?p=145","title":{"rendered":"L.A. County Professional Peace Officers Assn. v. County of L.A. \u2014 Union Did Not Clearly and Unmistakably Waive Right to Bargain Over Outsourcing Decision"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n
Case<\/dt>\n
Los Angeles County Professional Peace Officers Association v. County of Los Angeles<\/dd>\n
Court<\/dt>\n
2nd District Court of Appeal<\/dd>\n
Date Decided<\/dt>\n
2026-04-10<\/dd>\n
Docket No.<\/dt>\n
B338182<\/dd>\n
Status<\/dt>\n
Reported \/ Citable<\/dd>\n
Topics<\/dt>\n
Meyers-Milias-Brown Act; meet and confer; outsourcing; clear and unmistakable waiver; memorandum of understanding; public sector labor<\/dd>\n<\/dl>\n<\/div>\n

Background<\/h2>\n

The Los Angeles County Professional Peace Officers Association (PPOA) is the exclusive bargaining representative for County security officers in Bargaining Unit 621. PPOA and the County are parties to a memorandum of understanding (MOU) negotiated under the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act, the statute governing labor relations between local public employers and their employees in California.<\/p>\n

Article 16 of the MOU addressed employee rights when functions are transferred. It required the County to advise PPOA when County functions were being transferred to other public or private entities and to consult about transition arrangements. The Article concluded with the statement: “It is understood and agreed that Management shall have no obligation to negotiate the decision of any reorganization by the County during the life of this agreement.”<\/p>\n

In May 2021, PPOA learned the County intended to outsource security work at the Kenneth Hahn Hall of Administration to a private contractor. PPOA demanded to meet and confer about the outsourcing decision. The County refused, asserting that PPOA had waived this right in Article 16 of the MOU, and offered only effects bargaining (negotiations limited to the consequences of the decision, not the decision itself). PPOA filed an unfair practice charge with the Los Angeles County Employee Relations Commission, which dismissed the charge after concluding the MOU clearly and unmistakably waived bargaining over reorganization decisions. PPOA’s writ petition in superior court was denied, and PPOA appealed.<\/p>\n

The Court’s Holding<\/h2>\n

The Second District Court of Appeal, Division Seven, reversed and remanded. The court held that PPOA did not clearly and unmistakably waive its statutory right to meet and confer over the outsourcing decision in Article 16 of the MOU.<\/p>\n

Under California law, a public employee union may waive its right to bargain over a mandatory subject of bargaining only through a clear and unmistakable expression of intent. Generic management rights clauses are not sufficient. The waiver must specifically address the subject in question with language that leaves no reasonable doubt about the union’s relinquishment of bargaining rights.<\/p>\n

Article 16’s reference to “reorganization” was not clear and unmistakable enough to encompass an outsourcing decision. Reorganization is a broad term that often refers to internal restructuring within a public agency, while outsourcing involves transferring work to an external entity\u2014a distinct kind of decision with different employment implications. Article 16’s other provisions actually presupposed that the County would meet and confer over outsourcing decisions, requiring notification and consultation in connection with potential transfers of functions. Reading Article 16 as a complete waiver of bargaining over outsourcing would be inconsistent with the rest of the article.<\/p>\n

Because the County failed to demonstrate a clear and unmistakable waiver, PPOA retained its statutory right to meet and confer over the outsourcing decision under the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act.<\/p>\n

Key Takeaways<\/h2>\n