Opinion ID: 1161631
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: A Genuine Issue of Material Fact Exists as to Whether the Assignment Should Have Been Based on Seniority.

Text: Larsen and Cooper argue that three separate provisions of the collective bargaining agreement required MOA to make the Operation Valley Thunder assignments on the basis of seniority. They point to the agreement's provisions on job assignments, shift changes, and overtime. The trial court granted summary judgment on all three claims. We review each claim in turn.
Larsen and Cooper argue that because the Operation Valley Thunder assignments were job assignments, Loy should have made them according to seniority. Article IX, § 7 of the collective bargaining agreement requires that job assignments be made on the basis of seniority and defines the term job assignment as the transfer of an employee from one section or division to another. [13] Both the APDEA Executive Board and MOA, the actual parties to the collective bargaining agreement, claim that the Operation Valley Thunder placements were not job assignments. MOA maintains that the term job assignment in Article IX, § 7 refers only to transfers within the Anchorage Police Department. Because the officers assigned to Operation Valley Thunder also continued to work on case assignments from the APD Metro Section in addition to their case assignment to Operation Valley Thunder, MOA contends that they were not transferred and that their assignment to the new operation did not constitute a job assignment under the agreement. But to the extent that this is evidence of MOA's subjective intent, it is of little value as it reflects only a restatement of [its] position in this litigation to which little, if any, weight should be given. [14] The vice president of APDEA explained in his deposition that the APDEA Executive Board felt it was not a job assignment but more of a case assignment. But this testimony was provided to explain why APDEA decided not to take the officers' grievance to arbitration, and did not address APDEA's intent in drafting or agreeing to the contract term. On the other hand, evidence that the officers continued to be treated as members of the narcotics enforcement section is probative of MOA's position. Larsen and Cooper cite various instances in the record where the term job assignment is used with reference to special task force assignments. In evaluating the performance of an officer assigned to a DEA Drug Enforcement Task Force in Anchorage, MOA referred to his position as a job assignment. Gerald Weeks, who replaced Loy as Metro command officer, also stated his belief that the Operation Valley Thunder placements were job assignments and that Cooper and Larsen should have been appointed to the Task Force if they had more seniority than [Hooks and O'Brien]. When deposed, Loy, the officer who made the assignments, used the description job assignment in reference to Operation Valley Thunder. But it is not clear that each cited use of the term job assignment is tied to the Article IX, § 7 definition of that term. For example, the performance evaluation relied upon by Larsen and Cooper states that the officer has performed his job assignments as a Detective with the Anchorage Police Department in an acceptable manner.... This use of the term may simply equate job assignment with task, rather than an inter-division or section transfer. Similarly, Loy's reference to a job assignment directed to my unit was equated with those tasks that were given to me to fill. But Weeks refers to job assignments in the narrow contract sense and supports appellants' position. Furthermore, appellants submitted documentary evidence including a series of grievance decisions indicating that assignments to special task forces were considered job assignments in the contract sense. These documents may reflect a course of performance or special usage that may be of considerable value in deciding what the contract means. [15] On the record before us, the meaning of the term job assignment, defined in the contract as a transfer from one section or division to another, is uncertain. Just what a transfer is within the meaning of the contract is unclear. Whether Hooks and O'Brien were transferred to a new section or division and thus received new job assignments is a question that is partly fact dependent. As the facts before us point in conflicting directions, we conclude that the determination of this question requires additional litigation.
Larsen and Cooper contend that the Operation Valley Thunder assignments should have been based on seniority because they entailed shift changes. [16] Article IX, § 5 of the agreement provides that seniority must govern [f]or purposes of shift preference and that shift changes will be allowed at the beginning of each quarter, as long as an employee makes a timely request. [17] The superior court determined the assignments to Operation Valley Thunder did not qualify as shift changes because supervisors need only honor officers' shift preferences at the beginning of each quarter. For this reason, the superior court concluded that any changes in shift resulting from the Operation Valley Thunder assignment did not fall within the seniority requirements of Article IX, § 5 of the collective bargaining agreement. The court reasoned that the shift preference provision applied only to a quarterly process in which APD officers bid on different shifts. We agree. It is undisputed in the record before us that the Operation Valley Thunder assignments do not represent the kind of shift changes contemplated by the plain language of Article IX, § 5 of the agreement. Instead, § 5 refers to honoring the shift preferences of officers at the beginning of each quarter when schedules are set. Thus, we conclude that the superior court properly found that Operation Valley Thunder did not qualify as a shift change under Article IX, § 5.
The officers contend that because Operation Valley Thunder potentially involved overtime work, Loy should have made the assignments on the basis of seniority. MOA responds that Article IX, § 6 refers only to special events overtime for work at such events as Fur Rendezvous, hockey games, or concerts. According to MOA, § 6 does not govern work performed as part of an officer's regular assignment that happens to have irregular hours, such as Operation Valley Thunder. Article IX, § 6 provides that [a]ll work performed outside of the regularly scheduled workday shall be on a position seniority basis.... These special assignments will be posted no less that four (4) days prior to the event, where possible. (Emphasis added.) The agreement's use of the terms special assignment and event in § 6 supports MOA's interpretation. Although the officers assigned to Operation Valley Thunder may have been required to work different hours than other officers in the Metro unit, their assignment was not to a special event scheduled outside the regular workday. Moreover, as MOA notes, if § 6 were read to require seniority to govern whenever the potential for overtime exists, management of the department would be difficult at best. The vice president of APDEA articulated this concern: [T]here was an overriding feeling that if every assignment that was given out within a section was based on the amount of potential overtime that could maybe be made, it would be impossible, really, to run the department and to manage the way we just go about doing our jobs. And it would be a real can of worms in terms of the everyday functions, not to mention the intent of the language there. Thus, we uphold the superior court's grant of summary judgment on this issue.