CIVIL CASE INFORMATION SHEET

Transcription

1 CIVIL CASE INFORMATION SHEET CAUSE NUMBER (FOR CLERK USE ONLY): COURT (FOR CLERK USE ONLY): STYLED City of San Antonio, Texas v. San Antonio Police Officers' Association (e.g., John Smith v. All American Insurance Co; In re Mary Aun Jones; In the Matter of the Estate of George Jackson) A civil case information sheet must be completed and submitted when an original petition or application is filed to initiate a new civil, family law, probate, or mental health case or when a post-judgment petition for modification or motion for enforcement is filed in a family law case. The infmmation should be the best available at the time of filing. 1, Contact information for person completin2 case information sheet: Names of parties in case: Person or entity completing sheet is: Iii Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner Name: Plaintiff( s )/Petitioner( s): [JPro Se Plaintiff/Petitioner Bettye Lynn Lynn@laborcounsel.net City of San Antonio, Texas []Title N-D Agency []Other: Address: Telephone: 306 West Broadway Avenue Additional Patties in Child Suppmt Case: Defendant( s )/Respondent( s ): Custodial Parent: City/State/Zip: Fax: San Antonio Police Officers' Fort Worth, Texas Non-Custodial Parent: Association Signature: State Bar No: Presumed Father: , Indicate case type, or identify the most important issue in the case (select 011/y 1): Civil [Attach additional page as necessary to list all parties] FamilvLaw Post-judgment Actions Contract Injury or Dama2e Real Property Marriage Relationship (non-title IV-D) Debt/Contract [JAssault/Battery l:!eminent Domain/ DAnnulment (]Enforcement C)Consumer/DTP A [I Construction Condenmation [JDeclare Marriage Void [!Modification-Custody Cf Debt/Contract [I Defamation [JPartition Divorce CIModification-Other Cl Fraud/Misrepresentation Malpractice CIQuietTitle. CIWitl1 Children TitleIV-D [IOther Debt/Contract: CIAccounting [!Trespass to Try Title [INo Children blenforcement/modification Cl Legal [JOther Prope1ty: CIPaternity Foreclosure Cl Medical [IReciprocals (UIFSA) CIHome Equity-Expedited [JOther Professional l:isupport Order I:) Other Foreclosure Liability: Cl Franchise Related to Cl'iminal Cl Insurance CIMotor Vehicle Accident Matters Other Familv Law Parent-Child Relationship [JLandlord!Ienant [JPremises [IExpunction []Enforce Foreign [JAdoptioll/Adoplioh with [JN on-competition Product Liability [IJudgment Nisi Judgment 'temuila!iilti CIPartnership [JAsbestos/Silica [JN on-disclosure [IHabeas Corpus [Jch11;ri>i~t~ptiotl' II!Other Contract: [IOther Product Liability [JSeizure/Fmfeiture []Name Change l:lc!lild sii\lp-olt~ CBA -- Evergreen List Product: []Writ of Habeas C01pus- CIProtective Order Pre-indictment [JRemoval of Disabilities Cl Other Injury or Damage: l:)other: of Minority Cl Other: Employment Other Civil [JDiscrimination l:)administrative Appeal []Lawyer Discipline CIRetaliation [JAntitrnst/Unfair [1Pe1petuate Testimony CITe1mination Competition Cf Securities/Stock [JWorkers' Compensation [JCode Violations CITmtious Inteiference CIOther Employment: []Foreign Judgment El Other: [IIntellectual Prope1ty Tax Probate & Mental Health [JTax Appraisal Probate/Willslb1testate Admi11ist1 ation l;!guardianship-adult ClTax Delinquency [JDependent Administration [I Guardianship-Minor ClotherTax l:)independent Administration []Mental Health CIOther Estate Proceedings [JOther: [iii~!~? DTerniifi~tlon or Pai-ental Right$ _... CICJthei' ParenFChild: 3. Indicate procednl"e or remedy, if applicable (may select more than 1): 0Appeal from Municipal or Justice Court li)declaratory Judgment 0Prejudgment Remedy 0Arbitration-related 0Garnishment 0Protective Order 0Attachment 0Inte1pleader 0Receiver 0Bill of Review 0License 0Sequestration 0Cettiorari 0Mandamus 0Temporaiy Restraining Order/Injunction Octass Action 0Post-judgment 0Turnover 4. Indicate dama2es sou2ht (do not select if it is a familv law case): [ILess than $100,000, including damages of any kind, penalties, costs, expenses, pre-judgment interest, and attorney fees E]Less than $100,000 and non-moneta1y relief Clover $100, 000 but not more than $200,000 Clover $200,000 but not more than $1,000,000 []Over $1,000,000

2 CAUSE NO. CITY OF SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS IN THE DISTRICT COURT Plaintiff, v. DISTRICT SAN ANTONIO POLICE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION Defendant. BEXAR COUNTY, TEXAS PLAINTIFF S PETITION FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT AND REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURES TO THE HONORABLE COURT: PLAINTIFF, CITY OF SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS ( Plaintiff or the City ) files this, its Original Petition for Declaratory Judgment under Chapter 37 of the Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code, also entitled the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act, for the construction of a contract against Defendant SAN ANTONIO POLICE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION ( Defendant, the UNION or SAPOA ) as follows: I. DISCOVERY CONTROL PLAN 1. Plaintiff intends to conduct discovery under Level II of Rule of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. II. PARTIES 2. Plaintiff is the CITY OF SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS, a political subdivision under the laws of the State of Texas. 3. Defendant is a union, and it is the sole and exclusive bargaining representative of AND REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURES Page 1 of 11

3 the sworn police officers employed by the City of San Antonio s Police Department pursuant to Chapter 174 of the Texas Local Govt. Code. Defendant may be served with process by personally serving its President, Michael Helle, at the office of the San Antonio Police Officers Association, 1939 Interstate 410, Access Road, #300, San Antonio, Texas AND REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURES Page 2 of 11 III. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 4. Venue of this case is proper in Bexar County, Texas pursuant to the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code (a)(3), in that Plaintiff s principle office is located in Bexar County. Code IV. BOND 5. No bond is due from Plaintiff City of San Antonio, Texas. Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. V. FACTUAL BACKGROUND 6. The relationship between the parties has been controlled by a Collective Bargaining Agreement ( CBA ) since the 1970 s. The most recent CBA between the parties became effective on October 1, 2009 and its initial term was for five years, extending through September 30, By its own terms, the CBA continues to bind the parties due to its Evergreen Clause. See, 8 infra. To comply with Article 1 of the CBA, the parties commenced collective bargaining on January 24, 2014, to replace the CBA with a new agreement. 7. A copy of the CBA is attached hereto as Exhibit Article I of the CBA, entitled DURATION, provided as follows:

4 This Agreement shall be effective as of the first day of October, This agreement shall remain in effect until the 30 th day of September, 2014, or until such time as it is superseded by a new agreement between the parties, whichever occurs later, provided however, that in no event shall this Agreement continue in effect after September 30 th, Thus, the CBA does not have an absolute expiration date until September 30, 2024, i.e. nearly ten years from the date this Original Petition is filed. The Clause enlarging the duration of a CBA is commonly known as an Evergreen Clause, and it will be referred to by that name in this Petition. 9. In accordance with the CBA, the parties held their first collective bargaining negotiations meeting on January 24, Subsequent collective bargaining negotiations were conducted on March 18, April 3 and 7, On April 11, 2014, the City was notified that Defendant Union had replaced its first Chief Negotiator with another Chief Negotiator, Ron DeLord. 10. By letter dated April 11, 2014, Mr. DeLord notified the City that the Union was unilaterally cancelling all future collective bargaining negotiations that had been scheduled for April 15, April 29, May 5, May 13 and May 19, These dates had been previously set by the parties in Agreed Ground Rules that were executed on March 18, The parties met on April 29 and May 5, 2014, but did not meet on April 15, May 13 and 19, 2014 due to the Union s unilateral cancellation of those bargaining sessions. The Agreed Ground Rules require mutual agreement to change the scheduled collective bargaining dates and to add additional dates. The 60-day bargaining period established under Texas Local Gov t Code (a) expired May 19, The parties resumed collective bargaining on June 12 and held additional meetings on September 23 and 30, October 7 and 21 and November 3, 2014 and exchanged several proposals and counter-proposals regarding health benefits. 11. In recent years, the cost of City-provided health benefits has escalated and AND REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURES Page 3 of 11

5 continues to escalate annually, thereby burdening the General Fund of the City. Plaintiff s projected cost of health benefits for Police Officers is over $38,800,000 for FY 2015, and this cost will increase greatly over the next 10 years if changes are not made to the plan s benefit structure as well as to contributions made by the City on behalf of the Police Officers. 12. Currently, funding for emergency (Public Safety) services in the City (Police and Fire Departments) consumes 66% of the General Fund. Public Safety expenditures are growing at a faster rate than General Fund revenues, thus crowding out other essential services such as Street Maintenance, Parks and Libraries. The City Council has implemented a limitation of Public Safety expenditures to 66% of the General Fund, to avoid reducing other General Fund services. 13. During collective bargaining in 2014, the City has sought significant changes to the current health benefits and other benefits received by the bargaining unit employees represented by the Union that are mandated by the parties CBA, in an effort to slow or reverse the troubling trend of crowding out other essential City services. The City has proposed both benefit changes and that employees pay a share of their own and their dependents health benefits. Under the CBA, the City pays 100% of the costs for both employee and dependent health benefits. The City has also proposed during collective bargaining sessions held in 2014 that police officers and their dependents be offered health benefits under health benefit plan(s) that are significantly higher in costs and richer in benefits than the health benefit plans provided to civilian employees of the City. 14. On May 19, 2014, statutory impasse occurred pursuant to (a) of the Texas Local Government Code. Thereafter, the parties have engaged in six additional days of collective bargaining negotiations. 15. The City has adopted its budget for its Fiscal Year 2015, which began on October 1, The City needs to have a resolution of the health benefits matter immediately, as the City AND REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURES Page 4 of 11

6 Council has adopted a Fiscal Year 2015 budget for the Police Department which included budget cuts, and which allocated $10,000 per uniform employee for health benefits during FY Without this change, the City s costs are estimated to total more than $38,800,000 for the members of the police bargaining unit during the current Fiscal Year. 16. The Union has refused to agree to adequate changes in health benefits and other changes to the CBA, and the City is now faced with serious budgetary challenges. As a result of the Evergreen Clause, the CBA automatically rolled over on September 30, 2014 into the next year, and is potentially effective for ten more years, until September 30, Unless the Evergreen Clause is declared null, void, invalid and unenforceable by the Court, there will be significant impact on other essential services provided to residents. 17. If the CBA continues in effect, bargaining unit employees will not be obligated to pay a penny of escalating health benefits costs (they currently do not pay any premiums for employee and/or dependent coverage) until September 30, The City will be obligated to pay millions of dollars during this time period for police officers health benefits and other contractually required benefits -- dollars which are not now available to the City, are not currently budgeted by the City, and for which no funding mechanism has been established. Starting January, 2015, the Public Safety budget shortfall for health benefits over what has been budgeted by City Council is calculated to be $1.6 million per month. 18. Without effective changes to the CBA s health care plan, the City also faces a 40% federal excise tax starting in 2018 that the City will be obligated to pay to the Federal government due to the Affordable Care Act. The CBA requires the City to maintain a high-cost employersponsored health benefit plan commonly called a Cadillac Plan. The Cadillac Plan tax due as a AND REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURES Page 5 of 11

7 result of a rich health benefit plan contained in the Police Officers CBA is estimated to total over $36 million dollars through The purpose of this lawsuit is to request the Court s determination as to the constitutionality of the Evergreen Clause. It is not for the purpose of delaying collective bargaining. The City intends to continue collective bargaining with the Union during the pendency of this declaratory action. AND REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURES Page 6 of 11 VI. SUIT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT 20. Pursuant to Chapter 37, Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code, Plaintiff seeks a judgment declaring the Evergreen Clause null, void, invalid and unenforceable. A. THE EVERGREEN CLAUSE VIOLATES THE TEXAS CONSTITUTION. 21. The Police Officers Association s CBA s ten-year Evergreen Clause is illegal as it violates Article 11, 5 of the Texas Constitution by creating an unconstitutional unfunded debt. See McNeal v. City of Waco, 89 Tex. 83, 33 S.W. 322, 324 (1895); T.&N. O.R.R. Co. v. Galveston County, 141 Tex. 34, 169 S.W.2d 713 (1943); Guerra v. McClellan, 250 S.W.2d 241 (Ct. App. San Antonio) aff d 152 Tex. 373 (1953)(same result under Article 11, 7 regarding counties); White v. Thos. Y. Pickett & Co., 355 S.W.2d 848 (Ct. App.-San Antonio, 1962) writ ref d, n.r.e.; City-County Solid Waste Control Board v. Capital City Leasing Inc., 813 S.W.2d 705, 717 (Ct. App.-Austin, 1991), writ denied; Atty. Gen. Op. Daniel ( debt is any obligation which is not to be satisfied out of lawful current revenues or out of some fund within immediate control of the Commissioner s Court and such debt is not payable out of current funds; debt is void without levy of tax). 22. The Evergreen Clause included in the parties CBA unconstitutionally binds the

8 City to fund a debt over the course of ten more fiscal years without the City having established a sinking fund. Thus, the Evergreen Clause results in an unconstitutional limitation on the legislative powers of the City s elected representatives, its City Council. B. THE EVERGREEN CLAUSE IS CONTRARY TO PUBLIC POLICY. 23. Evergreen Clauses in government contracts, like the one in the parties CBA, have been declared by Texas courts to be contrary to public policy and, thus, illegal and void. See Clear Lake City Water Auth. v. Clear Lake Utils. Co., 549 S.W.2d 385, (Tex. 1977). Clear Lake held the evergreen provision in the contract at issue had the potential to control, hamper or impede, the water authority in the exercise of its governmental powers, and invalidated the contract. Id. at 392. See also City of Corpus Christi v. Taylor, 126 S.W.3d 712, 719, 722 (Tex. App. Corpus Christi 2004, pet. dism d). 24. As a result of the ten-year Evergreen Clause, the City is saddled with the costs of providing richer health benefits to Union members than it does to other City employees. Such a result hinders and prohibits the City Council from exercising its legislative and governmental authority. Because the City s Public Safety budget consumes such a large percentage of the City s General Fund (66%), these expenditures nullify the City Council s authority to determine the appropriate allocation of General Fund monies to a wide array of essential City services. The Evergreen Clause poses a significant hindrance to the City Council s management of its finances, now and in the future. This situation was considered and addressed by the City s Legacy Task Force during the Fall of 2013, with its recommendations mirrored in the City s proposals on health care benefits made during the last 10 months of collective bargaining with the Union. This situation begs for the Court s attention as the Evergreen Clause here extends for an unconscionable 10 years -- literally tying the hands of the currently elected City Council, as well as future City AND REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURES Page 7 of 11

9 Councils, for a decade. The City Council is effectively prohibited from adjusting General Fund expenditures to meet changing needs of the City and its citizens. VII. PRAYER For these reasons, Plaintiff asks that Defendant be cited to appear and answer and the Court to do the following: 25. The Evergreen Clause should be immediately declared null, void, invalid and unenforceable as it violates Article 11, 5 of the Texas Constitution. The Evergreen Clause should be declared null, void, invalid and unenforceable, inasmuch as it binds Plaintiff s current and future City Councils and prevents the City Council from exercising its legislative and other governmental authority for ten years. 26. The Evergreen Clause should be declared null, void, invalid and unenforceable because it has the effect of violating public policy by controlling, hampering and impeding the legislative powers and duties of the City Council of the City of San Antonio. 27. The Evergreen Clause should be declared null, void, invalid and unenforceable because it purports to accomplish a surrender of the City s governmental and legislative functions. 28. The Evergreen Clause should be declared null, void, invalid and unenforceable because it purports to abdicate the governmental functions and police powers of the City as applied to its Police Officers. 29. The Collective Bargaining Agreement with the Union should be declared by the Court as expired and/or terminable at the will of the City. 30. Plaintiff prays that the Court award Plaintiff all other relief, in law and in equity, to which the Plaintiff may be entitled. AND REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURES Page 8 of 11

10 Respectfully Submitted, /s/ Bettye Lynn Bettye Lynn State Bar No LYNN, ROSS & GANNAWAY, LLP 306 West Broadway Avenue Fort Worth, Texas Telephone: (817) Facsimile: (817) Jeffrey C. Londa State Bar No OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. One Allen Center, 500 Dallas Street, Suite 3000 Houston, Texas Telephone: (713) Facsimile: (713) Michael Bernard State Bar No BRACEWELL & GIULIANI 300 Convent Street San Antonio, Texas Telephone: (210) Robert F. Greenblum, City Attorney State Bar No Martha G. Sepeda, First Assistant City Attorney State Bar No Kenneth Clark, Deputy City Attorney State Bar No Deborah L. Klein, Assistant City Attorney State Bar No AND REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURES Page 9 of 11

11 CITY OF SAN ANTONIO 100 Military Plaza, City Hall, Third Floor San Antonio, Texas Telephone: (210) Facsimile: (210) ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF, CITY OF SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS AND REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURES Page 10 of 11

12 REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURES Pursuant to Rule 194 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff hereby requests Defendant to disclose within 50 days of service of this request, the information or material described in Rule (a)-(k) of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. /s/ Bettye Lynn Bettye Lynn AND REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURES Page 11 of 11