Stockton POA Wins at Arbitration

GARRETT PORTER
Associate Attorney
Mastagni Holstedt, APC

City Cannot Circumvent Negotiated Holiday Pay Benefits

Our law enforcement clients know all too well that they won’t have every holiday off to be with their families. The public requires public safety services every day of the year, including holidays, and public safety agencies must maintain proper staffing levels to ensure proper service to the public. As a consequence of this 24/7 operational need, public safety employers often require employees to work holidays. To compensate employees for these schedules, public agencies and their unions often negotiate “holiday in lieu” pay, which provides additional compensation to employees in recognition of the work performed on or around holidays. 

The Stockton Police Officers’ Association (POA) recently obtained an important arbitration award requiring the City of Stockton to compensate affected members for lost holiday pay and to replenish the leave banks of members who had hours improperly deducted from their banks. The decision comes after a months-long grievance process involving a dispute over holiday pay and contract interpretation. 

On July 4, 2022, a Stockton Police Department captain failed to properly staff a community event. In effort to cover for this shortage, the captain assigned the Community Response Team (CRT) and Ceasefire Intervention Unit (CIU) members of the Stockton P.D., who were observing the holiday and consequently not at work, to backfill this event. The captain made this assignment despite those members historically being considered “non-patrol assignments.” The labor contract between the City and the POA notes that “non-patrol assignments” are entitled to take each City-observed holiday off with full pay. When the City learned that these CRT and CIU members were not present for the Independence Day events, the City unilaterally deducted 10 hours from each of the members’ leave banks. Subsequently, the City required the CRT and CIU members to either work each of the holidays since July 4, 2022, or to burn their leave banks without receiving any sort of additional compensation. 

The labor contract between the City and the POA delineates two types of assignments receiving holiday compensation: non-patrol and patrol assignments. According to the labor contract, “patrol assignments” are required to work on City-observed holidays but are paid at time-and-a-half and receive holiday in lieu pay. “Non-patrol assignments” receive a paid day off. Here, the City suddenly decided that the CRT and CIU members did not fit into its definition of a “patrol” or “non-patrol” assignment, but rather fell into a “hole” not covered by the contract. Therefore, they were not entitled to either of the two holiday compensation schedules prescribed in the labor contract. The City implemented this change despite past practice trends of the opposite; previous to July 4, 2022, these members received holiday compensation, as the City had correctly categorized them as “non-patrol assignments,” as reflected by shift schedules, pay stubs and Department directives. 

During the grievance process, the City continuously dismissed the claim that its refusal to provide holiday compensation constituted a labor contract violation. The City maintained that the members did not meet the explicit contract language, which outlines “non-patrol assignments” as “assignments which observe City holidays” and includes those “who are not assigned to the traditional 10-plan” field/patrol shift schedule. The City simply argued that these members failed to meet this “non-patrol” definition because (1) they were in assignments that did not observe holidays and (2) they were assigned to a traditional 10-plan field schedule. 

After exhausting the grievance process, the parties moved to arbitration. During cross-examination, Mastagni Holstedt attorney Garrett Porter successfully forced the City’s deputy chief witness to admit that every Stockton P.D. employee should receive some type of holiday compensation. Moreover, the witness admitted that he assumed CRT and CIU members received some kind of holiday remuneration even if they failed to meet the “patrol” or “non-patrol” designations. 

Arbitrator John LaRocco sustained the POA’s grievance, issuing a decision awarding hundreds of hours in holiday compensation that had been improperly withheld from the members. The arbitrator recognized that because the CRT and CIU members do not work schedules predicated on serving the public 24/7, these groups can only best be categorized as “non-patrol.” Although the arbitrator dismissed general claims to past practice, he noted that the City’s previous payroll practice made this patrol/non-patrol distinction, as the non-patrol designation appeared on previous pay stubs of CRT and CIU members. Relatedly, the City’s narrow focus on the language disregarded the bigger picture: the clear and unambiguous language prescribes that every officer must be afforded some type of holiday compensation. Each officer must be either “patrol” or “non-patrol.” 

In regard to past practice claims, the arbitrator recognized that (1) past practice cannot alter clear contract terms, and (2) the labor contract contained an express provision precluding consideration of any “practice” that was in conflict with the contract terms (i.e., a zipper clause). As such, the arbitrator found claims to past practice (other than the pay stub designation claim) irrelevant. 

The Stockton POA case serves as a warning to other labor associations to be vigilant against employer attempts to circumvent the terms of the labor contract to exclude members from negotiated benefits like holiday compensation. Here, the POA negotiated a contract with an encompassing dichotomy that classified members as either “patrol” or “non-patrol.” The City attempted to subvert this dichotomy by conjuring a third category. When held to account for this breach of contract, the City predictably attempted to misconstrue the contract’s “zipper clause” to justify its violation of the contract as a past practice despite the contract language. Thankfully, the arbitrator recognized that a new interpretation of the contract language implemented unilaterally cannot constitute a past practice that overcomes the unambiguous contract language.

 About the Author

Garrett Porter is an associate attorney in the Labor & Employment Department at Mastagni Holstedt, APC. He is a PORAC Legal Defense Fund Panel attorney and represents public safety employees in administrative and disciplinary investigations, hearings, critical incident investigations, labor arbitration hearings and criminal defense.