SAN FRANCISCO – An appeals court has denied a petition for arbitration presented by the San Francisco Police Officers' Association.
"Because we conclude the trial court properly found that the parties had not agreed to subject the city’s determinations regarding the revised use of force policy to arbitration, we shall affirm the court’s order denying the association’s petition to compel arbitration," according to the Sept. 26 ruling of the 1st Appellate District Court, Division Two.
The association had requested the arbitration after months of back-and-forth over use of force policy changes proposed for the San Francisco Police Department.
The 1st Appellate District Court, Division Two denied the request to have the city of San Francisco hear a grievance from the association that challenged the city's "refusal to further meet and confer before adopting and implementing a revised use of force policy for the San Francisco Police Department," the ruling states.
At odds is a provision within the 2016 revised use of force policy for the San Francisco Police Department. According to the ruling, both the association and the San Francisco Police Commission, the city of San Francisco and the interim chief of police agree on "most aspects of the revised policy." But some disagreement remained, "primarily regarding a provision that prohibited police use of the carotid restraint and a provision that strictly prohibited officers from shooting at moving vehicles," the ruling states.
"The association contends that the lower court improperly found that its challenge to the city’s denial of its grievance related to the revised use of force policy was not subject to arbitration," the ruling states.
In December 2016, "the commission voted unanimously to adopt the revised use of force policy, which included the provisions prohibiting the carotid hold and shooting at moving vehicles challenged by the association," the ruling states.
Revisions to the use of force policy for the San Francisco Police Department began in late 2015 by the commission. Several public hearings were held and the association was included in the revisions process. There were just a few policy issues that the association and commission were at odds on.
According to the ruling, the commission voted in June 2016 to "unanimously to adopt the draft policy, subject to 'meet and confer' with the association," the ruling states.
After exchanging several “package deal” proposals and counterproposals, "the city determined that it could not agree to the association’s proposed exceptions to the provision that prohibits shooting at moving vehicles. The city therefore determined that any further discussion of that issue would be futile and declared impasse," the ruling states.
The association then filed a grievance in October 2016 alleging that the city had declared the impasse prematurely. It also requested that negotiations continue, "and enter into a written agreement on matters to which the parties had verbally agreed, including the association’s proposed exception to the prohibition against shooting at moving vehicles," according to the ruling.