 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Spokane Police Guild v. Spokane Civil Service Commission12/21/1999
The City of Spokane (City) and the Spokane Police Guild (Guild) entered into a collective bargaining agreement which changed the process of promoting a patrolman to sergeant. The City and the Guild advised the Spokane Civil Service Commission (Commission) about this change, but the Commission refused to recognize it. The City and the Guild then sought a declaratory judgment or, alternatively, a writ of review. The court entered a declaratory judgment and summary judgment in favor of the City and the Guild and ordered the Commission to comply with the change. The Commission appeals. We affirm.
Prior to 1996, the Commission had sole responsibility for promoting a uniformed patrolman to sergeant under the City charter. The Commission used a multiple-choice examination to determine who should be promoted and made each promotion based on the "rule of one." Under this rule, the highest ranked candidate on the exam was the person certified to the police department for promotion.
The Guild is the authorized bargaining representative for all Spokane Police Department employees below the rank of lieutenant. In 1996, the City and the Guild entered into a binding collective bargaining agreement (Agreement) in accordance with RCW 41.56. As part of the Agreement, the parties negotiated a new procedure for promoting a uniformed patrolman to sergeant. The City and the Guild agreed that an assessment center, a process to further evaluate candidates, should be used to supplement the Commission's testing procedure. The assessment center would evaluate the leadership and supervisory abilities of the top 12 scorers on the civil service exam and determine who was the best qualified patrolman for promotion.
In November 1997, the City and the Guild informed the Commission about the change in promotion procedure. Under the new system, the Commission was required to provide the names of the top 12 scorers on the exam to the City. The Commission decided to conduct a hearing before complying with the change.
On December 16, 1997, the Commission elected not to recognize the change and chose to follow its normal procedures. The City and the Guild were advised it would not certify the pay for any individual who was promoted to sergeant under the new procedure.
The City and the Guild then brought this action requesting a declaratory judgment to establish the legal rights among the parties or, alternatively, a writ of review. The Commission filed a cross claim for a writ of prohibition. Thereafter, both parties filed motions for summary judgment. The court determined that the collective bargaining agreement superseded the civil service rules and entered a declaratory judgment and summary judgment in favor of the City and the Guild. It ordered the Commission to comply with the Agreement and dismissed the writ of prohibition. This appeal follows.
The Commission contends that the court erred by entering a declaratory judgment requiring it to abide by the Agreement's promotion procedures. Ordinary rules of appellate procedure apply to an appeal from a declaratory judgment. Simpson Tacoma Kraft Co. v. Department of Ecology, 119 Wn.2d 640, 646, 835 P.2d 1030 (1992). In a declaratory judgment action, "'{a}ll orders, judgments and decrees . . . may be reviewed as other orders, judgments and decrees.'" Id. (quoting RCW 7.24.070 and Nollette v. Christianson, 115 Wn.2d at 594, 599, 800 P.2d 359 (1990)).
Here, the trial court not only granted the motion for declaratory relief, but also granted the City and the Guild's motion for summary judgment. Accordingly, we will engage in the same inquiry as the trial court when reviewing its order of summ
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Washington Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|