Police Union Fights Random Drug Testing

The largest Los Angeles police union moved Friday to block a plan by Police Chief Daryl F. Gates to conduct random drug testing of sworn officers, setting the stage for a likely court fight as the LAPD tries to begin such testing by June 1.

The Los Angeles Police Protective League filed an unfair labor practices complaint and formally notified LAPD officials that it is not willing to modify its contract with the city, which now allows very limited drug testing.

“What’s the purpose of having a contract?” asked Lt. George V. Aliano, president of the 7,800-member union. He called Gates’ drug testing proposal “an attempt to reopen an issue already negotiated.”

But LAPD spokesman Cmdr. William Booth said the department will proceed with the plan to have a computer select personnel, from Gates on down, for drug testing each day.

“We’re going to do it as soon as we can,” Booth said.

In declaring his unwillingness to negotiate on the issue, and promising “appropriate legal action,” Aliano said two-thirds of union members responding to a survey opposed any modification of their four-year contract “in the middle of its term.”

Under current policy, random drug testing is allowed only with officers in their first 18 months of employment. Special urine tests can be ordered for veteran officers only when there is some evidence of drug use.

In November, however, Gates submitted a formal proposal to begin negotiations with the union to extend the random testing to all officers. Gates said citizens should have the assurance that the people who respond to emergencies are not on drugs.

Under his plan, the LAPD’s medical liaison staff would collect urine samples for testing in the department’s lab. A positive reading would trigger a test by an independent lab--whose confirmation of the finding would result in termination.

At the time Gates announced his plan, Aliano had said he expected members of his union to support testing because “they want to show they are drug-free just like everybody else.” But Aliano said the survey of members showed their apprehension on a variety of questions raised by Gates’ proposal.

“The real issue is reopening the contract,” the union head said Friday. “That would be like us trying to reopen the contract with the city every six months to ask for higher salaries. . . .

“He (Gates) said, ‘You don’t know what they (members) want. Well, I found out what they want. . . . I consider two-thirds a pretty good mandate.”

Aliano said the union is willing to “put everything back on the table in March, 1992,” when negotiations begin on a new contract.

Only a handful of police departments around the country now do random drug testing of all officers.

But Gates, who has long sought such a program, was encouraged by a U.S. Supreme Court decision late last year not to consider a union challenge to the Boston Police Department’s 3-year-old drug testing policy.

At issue is a state labor law requirement that management “meet and confer” in good faith with a union before making significant changes in work conditions.

The Los Angeles Police Protective League’s official refusal “to meet and confer on the issue of drug testing” was included in a letter hand-delivered Friday to Parker Center police headquarters.

Booth said that, under LAPD officials’ interpretation of court rulings, the department met its legal obligation merely “by extending an offer to meet and confer on the issue.”

“This response is ‘no,’ to decline that request,” he added. “The offer and the request for a meeting is still there, as are the plans to proceed with the random testing. . . . We’re going to go ahead, with an implementation date of no later than June 1.”

In its second action Friday, the police union filed a complaint with the city’s Employee Relations Board. “This is the official way for me to say I’m not meeting and it’s unfair for (Gates) to try to get me to that table,” Aliano said.

An attorney for the Los Angeles Police Protective League, Cecil Marr, said the union also might seek arbitration to settle the question of whether expanded drug testing constitutes a reopening of the officers’ contract.

“If we can’t resolve this administratively by June 1, we’ll have to go to court,” he said.

The union’s survey of officers asked six questions, including whether any drug testing should be done by the LAPD’s Scientific Investigative Division or by an outside lab, whether officers who admit to a drug problem should be allowed to return to work after completing a rehabilitation program, and even whether any testing should look for traces of steroids.

Aliano said he would not disclose the results of five of the six questions--including the one seeking officers’ general attitude toward random drug testing--because of their potential use in future contract negotiations.

“If you reveal how your membership feels, the other side knows if you’re weak or strong. I can’t do that,” he said.

In a statement released Friday, the union said: “The decision to not reopen our contract in no way detracts from the sensitive nature of drug testing or the Los Angeles police officers’ concern about the drug problem in this city and country. However, we are not part of that problem. . . . On this particular issue we must protect ourselves and our legitimate right to negotiate. . . .”