Union Cites High Court Rulings : S.D. Police Seek Lunchtime Back Pay

The San Diego Police Officers Assn. has filed a grievance against the city asking that police officers receive nearly $9 million in back pay for the officers’ lunchtimes over the last four years.

Calling the pay issue “a reasonable request and not a waste of taxpayers’ money,” POA President Ty Reid said that officers deserve the pay because they are on call and “on duty for all intents and purposes” during their lunch breaks. In addition, Reid contends that recent rulings by the U.S. Supreme Court and California Supreme Court reinforce the union’s position.

“The point is not getting paid for just sitting around eating lunch,” Reid said. “The issue is that police officers are getting paid for less time than they’re on duty.”

However, city officials, who plan to meet with POA leaders Monday to discuss the issue, argue that the court rulings may not apply to the city and that the officers’ pay request is unreasonable.

Jack McGrory, acting deputy city manager, said that the fiscal 1985 labor agreement between the city and the POA specifies that officers remain on call during their unpaid 30-minute lunch periods and that they receive premium overtime “if they’re interrupted by official business and can’t take their lunch break.”

“I think that we have a fairly liberal lunch-period policy,” McGrory said. “We feel that the subject is covered by the contract and that we won’t have to pay out anything.” If the matter is not settled administratively, the POA has threatened to file a lawsuit seeking the back pay.

The police officers’ grievance stems from a July, 1984, ruling by the California Supreme Court stating that cities and counties must pay police officers if they are on call and restricted during their lunch breaks. That decision came in a case filed by the Madera Police Officers Assn.

In a separate case, the U.S. Supreme

Court ruled in February that the U.S. Fair Labor Standards Act, which governs public workers’ overtime pay, applies to local governments.

“It’s not like we’re making some ridiculous or terrible request out of the blue,” Reid explained. “All we’re saying is that the issue has already been decided by the state and U.S. Supreme Courts and now we just want our money.”

Reid estimates that the city owes police officers $8.8 million in back pay for lunchtime, adding that the figure is increasing by $9,000 a day pending resolution of the dispute.

City officials, however, claim that even if the court rulings do apply to San Diego, the amount owed would be only about $4 million. Even that figure, however, far exceeds the $1.1 million that the City Council set aside in June in anticipation of the court rulings’ fiscal impact on the city.

Differences over which officers would be eligible for the back lunchtime pay and the period for which they should be paid account for the wide gap between the city’s and union’s estimates of how much money is at stake.

McGrory argues that, if the court rulings affect San Diego, police officers should be paid only from the time of the state high court’s July, 1984, decision. Furthermore, the city contends that detectives would not be eligible for the back pay because they are not on call during their lunch breaks.

Reid explained that POA leaders regard the court’s ruling in the Madera case as an interpretation of an existing labor law, and said he believes that officers should be eligible for retroactive pay back to 1981, when the law went into effect. In addition, Reid argued that detectives also should receive the back pay, saying that, while they have less restrictions placed on their lunch breaks than uniformed officers do, “they still can’t do certain things like have a drink or jog, and so the time isn’t completely their own.”

The lunchtime restrictions imposed upon uniformed officers include prohibitions against leaving their beats, going home, taking off their uniforms or conducting personal business without supervisors’ permission.

“The break can’t really be considered a normal lunch break because of the restrictions and the fact that you’re always on call,” Reid said.

McGrory, however, argued that those restrictions are less severe than those involved in the Madera case--a major reason why city officials believe that the court ruling may not apply to San Diego.

Policy regarding whether public safety employees deserve to be paid for on-call lunch periods varies from city to city, Reid and McGrory said. Some cities have agreed to pay for police officers’ lunch periods in light of the court rulings, while others have eased the officers’ lunchtime limitations or dealt with the matter by extending or shortening officers’ shifts.

The County of San Diego recently agreed to pay deputy sheriffs from the time they report to work until the time they leave--a policy that has the practical effect of compensating them for lunch breaks, according to an attorney who represents the San Diego County Deputy Sheriff’s Assn.