Costa Mesa attorneys use union president’s testimony
In a lawsuit filed by a city employee union seeking to block proposed layoffs, Costa Mesa defense attorneys used some recent sworn deposition of the union’s president to assert that parts of the lawsuit should be dismissed.
Attorneys from the Jones Day law firm argued in an Orange County Superior Court motion that statements given by Helen Nenadal from a Jan. 20 deposition actually support some arguments for dismissal.
Nenadal, president of Costa Mesa City Employees Assn. (CMCEA), testified that after the city hurried through its outsourcing plan, the city then restarted the open-bidding process for city services and included employees in that process, as required by City Council policy.
According to transcripts of the deposition obtained by the Daily Pilot, Jones Day attorney John Vogt asked Nenadal: “All right. So as far as you know, the city did what you asked them to do, follow [City] Council policy 100-6, for the issuance of all the second set of [requests for proposals]?”
“To my knowledge,” she answered.
“OK. To your knowledge that’s correct?”
“Yes.”
Vogt argues in his filing that Nenadal’s deposition flies in the face of CMCEA’s argument that the city did not involve the union in the outsourcing process.
The lawsuit was filed in May, and Costa Mesa didn’t involve union representatives until months after that.
According to the city, Nenadal’s statements show union representatives were eventually included in the outsourcing process; therefore, that part of the lawsuit should be dismissed.
The arguments are part of Costa Mesa’s motion for a summary judgment. The city hopes the judge will review the employees’ claims and then dismiss them one by one.
For example, Vogt disputes CMCEA’s contention that only certain city services provided by the association could be outsourced. The association argued that much of the work needed to be done by in-house employees, not outside contractors.
In his motion, Vogt argues the employee contract language is ambiguous — a point he claims Nenadal’s deposition supports.
The city is claiming in its motion that if the employee contract doesn’t specify which services it’s hoping to protect, then the city should be able to outsource what it sees fit.
The CMCEA, meanwhile, is seeking to minimize the significance of Nenadal’s deposition in its own court filings.
Richard Levine, representing the employee group, claims introducing Nenadal’s deposition was akin to improperly introducing new evidence.
Additionally, Nenadal’s statements and contract language don’t override state laws forbidding outsourcing, Levine wrote.
“A labor contract cannot grant the city to take action that is prohibited by law,” the CMCEA response reads. “As defendants are well aware, plaintiff asserts that the type of contracting at issue in this case is prohibited by state law.”
Nenadal’s statements didn’t touch on other parts of the CMCEA lawsuit. For instance, the lawsuit claims it’s illegal to privatize city services that are not considered specialized simply to save money.
City CEO Tom Hatch addresses the issue in his Jan. 13 deposition, saying that language in the city’s requests for proposals (RFPs) asked for “innovative” approaches to city services, not just money-saving alternatives.
Both Nenadal and Hatch held to their general positions through hours of testimony, the depositions show.
Nenadal briefly explained how contracting out services would hurt city workers’ families, and stood by her lawsuit’s claim that actions by the City Council majority violate the city’s contract with the CMCEA.
Orange County Superior Court Judge Tam Nomoto Schumann is scheduled to rule on Costa Mesa’s motion for summary judgment next month.
A temporary injunction forbidding Costa Mesa from privatizing any city services remains in place. The lawsuit is expected to go to trial in April.
Twitter: @JosephSerna