This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.
Facts
Two police officers, assigned to a narcotics task force, were reassigned to patrol duties after being found in violation of department policies, including consuming alcohol while on call and failing to follow directives during an internal investigation. The officers and their union argued that the reassignment was disciplinary and subject to arbitration under their collective bargaining agreement (CBA), while the city maintained it was a non-arbitrable reassignment from a specialty position (paras 2-6).
Procedural History
- District Court of San Juan County: The court granted summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs, finding that the reassignment was disciplinary and subject to arbitration under the CBA. The court also denied the defendants' motion for reconsideration and dismissed their counterclaim for malicious abuse of process (paras 12-13).
Parties' Submissions
- Plaintiffs: Argued that the reassignment was disciplinary, resulting in reduced responsibilities, pay, and career opportunities, and therefore subject to arbitration under the CBA. They relied on the CBA provisions and affidavits to support their claim (paras 10-11).
- Defendants: Contended that the reassignment was a non-arbitrable personnel decision under Article 32 of the CBA, which grants the police chief discretion over specialty position reassignments. They also argued that the plaintiffs failed to follow grievance procedures (paras 10-11).
Legal Issues
- Was the reassignment of the officers a disciplinary action subject to arbitration under the CBA?
- Did the plaintiffs meet their burden of proof to establish that their interpretation of the CBA should prevail?
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs and remanded the case for further proceedings (para 29).
Reasons
Per Alarid J. (Fry J. concurring):
The court held that the plaintiffs failed to eliminate genuine issues of material fact regarding the interpretation of the CBA. The CBA was ambiguous as to whether reassignments from specialty positions imposed as discipline were subject to arbitration. The plaintiffs bore the burden of proving their interpretation of the CBA, but their evidence, limited to the CBA itself, was insufficient. The court emphasized that extrinsic evidence, such as bargaining history, should be considered to resolve the ambiguity. The case was remanded for further factual development to determine the parties' intent at the time of the CBA's formation (paras 16-24, 29).
Special Concurrence and Partial Dissent by Pickard J.:
Judge Pickard agreed that the district court erred in granting summary judgment for the plaintiffs but disagreed with remanding the case for further factual development. He argued that both parties had presented the case as ready for resolution based on the existing record and that the plaintiffs failed to meet their burden of proof. He would have directed the entry of summary judgment in favor of the defendants (paras 31-35).