Labor Relations: The Meet and Confer Process

221 San Bernardino Public Employees Assn. v. City of Fontana (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 1215, 1219, 1224 [79 Cal.Rptr.2d 634, 636, 639]. Distinguished by, Retired Employees Assn. of Orange County, Inc. v. County of Orange (2011) 52 Cal.4th 1171 [134 Cal.Rptr.3d 779]. 222 Willis v. City of Garden Grove (1979) 93 Cal.App.3d 208 [155 Cal.Rptr. 493]. 223 Labor Code § 246. 224 Labor Code §§ 245 - 249. 225 International Assn. of Fire Fighters Union v. City of Pleasanton (1976) 56 Cal.App.3d 959 [129 Cal.Rptr. 68]. 226 Los Angeles County Civil Service Com. v. Superior Court (1978) 23 Cal.3d 55 [151 Cal.Rptr. 547]. 227 City of Sacramento (2013) PERB Dec. No. 2351-M [38 PERC ¶ 104]. 228 Indio Police Command Unit Assn. v. City of Indio (2014) 230 Cal.App.4th 521 [178 Cal.Rptr.3d 530]. 229 Alum Rock Union Elementary School District (1983) PERB Dec. No. 322-E [7 PERC ¶ 14184]. 230 Los Angeles County Employees Assn., Local 660 v. County of Los Angeles (1973) 33 Cal.App.3d 1 [108 Cal.Rptr. 625]. 231 Fire Fighters Union v. City of Vallejo (1974) 12 Cal.3d 608 [116 Cal.Rptr. 507, 526 P.2d 971]. 232 County of Kern (2018) PERB Dec. No. 2615-M [43 PERC 109]. 233 Solano County Employees' Assn. v. County of Solano (1982) 136 Cal.App.3d 256 [186 Cal.Rptr. 147]. 236 Holliday v. City of Modesto (1991) 229 Cal.App.3d 528, 536 [280 Cal.Rptr. 206, 210]. See, Lanier v. City of Woodburn (9th Cir. 2008) 518 F.3d 1147 [in which the Ninth Circuit held that suspicion-less, pre-employment drug testing, while not unconstitutional on its face, is unconstitutional as applied to a candidate for a library page position. While public employers may continue to require suspicion-less, pre-employment drug testing, the Lanier decision requires that employers demonstrate a “special need” to justify the testing, as applied to specific job classes. The Court held that a general policy for a drug-free workplace does not suffice as a special need. However, a “special need” may be present for a number of different types of positions, such as safety- sensitive positions, and positions that supervise children]. 237 Los Angeles County Civil Service Commission v. Superior Court (1978) 23 Cal.3d 55 [151 Cal.Rptr. 547]. 238 People ex rel. Seal Beach Police Officers Assn. v. City of Seal Beach (1984) 36 Cal.3d 591 [205 Cal.Rptr. 794]. 239 San Diego Municipal. Employees Assn. v. Superior Court (2012) 206 Cal.App.4th 1447, 1463-1465 [143 Cal.Rptr.3d 49, 62-64]. 240 County of Santa Clara [Santa Clara County Corr. Peace Officers’ Ass’n] (2010) PERB Dec. No. 2114-M [34 PERC ¶ 97]; County of Santa Clara [Santa Clara County Registered Nurses Prof’l Ass’n] (2010) PERB Dec. No. 2120-M [34 PERC ¶ 109]. 241 Boling v. Public Employment Relations Board (2018) 5 Cal.5th 898. 242 Long Beach Police Officer Assn. v. City of Long Beach (1984) 156 Cal.App.3d 996 [203 Cal.Rptr. 494]. 243 Assn. for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs v. County of Los Angeles (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 1625 [83 Cal.Rptr.3d 494], as mod. (Oct 6, 2008). 244 Vernon Fire Fighters v. City of Vernon (1980) 107 Cal.App.3d 802 [165 Cal.Rptr. 908]. 245 County of Riverside (2003) PERB Dec. No. 1577-M [28 PERC ¶ 45]. 234 Fire Fighters Union v. City of Vallejo (1974) 12 Cal.3d 608 [116 Cal.Rptr. 507]. 235 Holliday v. City of Modesto (1991) 229 Cal.App.3d 528, 536 [280 Cal.Rptr. 206, 210].

Labor Relations: The Meet and Confer Process ©2019 (s) Liebert Cassidy Whitmore 88