Opinion ID: 1161631
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Grievances Were Timely as a Matter of Law.

Text: The superior court granted summary judgment to MOA on the ground that Larsen and Cooper failed to timely challenge the Operation Valley Thunder assignments. [8] The collective bargaining agreement in effect during the times relevant to this appeal required that grievants report complaints to a shop steward or APDEA representative who would attempt to resolve the matter by consulting with the employee's shift supervisor. If the steward or representative could not resolve the matter in this informal manner, the agreement required the representative to present the matter in writing to the chief of police within ninety calendar days from the date of the occurrence upon which the grievance was based. Lieutenant Loy made the disputed assignments on January 3, 1991. The official ninety-day deadline was therefore on April 3, 1991. Yet the plaintiffs failed to file a grievance until November 20, 1991. To justify their failure to meet this deadline, Larsen and Cooper respond that, in a June 4, 1991 memorandum, the police department management and APDEA representatives waived the ninety-day requirement for any and all grievances arising out of Operation Valley Thunder. Addressed to then Chief of Police Kevin O'Leary, the memorandum stated: After our discussion with Fred Thomas of D.E.A. regarding his concerns about the security of the above investigation, we had a meeting with the Metro Unit. As a result of that meeting, it was decided by all members of the unit that any and all labor relations complaints of a grievable nature that may arise out of this investigation would be placed on hold. No complaint will be forwarded to the Executive Board of APDEA until the completion of this investigation. The incidents will be documented by a memo to Capt. Walker and to Off. Kraft. The 90 day requirement for filing of grievances will be waived. There will [be] no accrual of retroactive benefits as a result of this agreement. This agreement is not precedent setting, nor will it establish Past Practice issues. The purpose of this agreement is not to avoid compliance with the existing contract between the Municipality of Anchorage and APDEA, but to allow a sensitive investigation to proceed, and still maintain the rights of the officers involved. (Emphasis added.) The collective bargaining agreement permitted the parties to modify the deadlines for filing grievances in this manner: The failure of either party to follow the above time limits shall result in resolution of the grievance against the party failing to meet the time limits. The parties may mutually agree in writing to modify the time limits in any step of the Grievance Procedure. (Emphasis added.) The critical issue, then, is whether the June 4 memorandum applied to all grievances arising out of Operation Valley Thunder or just those complaints arising after the police department management and APDEA executed the memorandum. The superior court concluded as a matter of law that the authors of the memorandumrepresentatives from APDEA and the police departmentdid not intend the waiver to apply retroactively. We disagree. First, the agreement itself contains no language limiting its application to prospective grievances. The memorandum memorializing the agreement states that for any and all grievances arising out of Operation Valley Thunder, [t]he 90 day requirement for filing of grievances will be waived. Second, the timing and course of events leading to the memorandum of agreement indicate that the memorandum was indeed a response to Larsen and Cooper's complaints and that the police department intended it to cover Larsen and Cooper's complaints. In support of its argument that the waiver of the ninety-day requirement did not cover Larsen and Cooper's grievance, MOA relies heavily on the testimony of MOA and APDEA representatives regarding their subjective intent in crafting the memorandum of agreement. For example, Captain Walker maintained in an affidavit that [t]here was no mutual agreement between APDEA and the Municipality by this memo to excuse any untimely filing of a grievance related to Operation Valley Thunder case assignment that may have been required to have been filed in early April, 1991.... But while we strive to give effect to the intention of the parties to a contract, looking to their testimony as to their subjective intentions or understandings will normally accomplish no more than a restatement of their conflicting positions. [9] Instead, we will look to express manifestations of each party's understanding of the contract in attempting to give effect to the intent behind the agreement. [10] Both Captain Tom Walker and Officer Alan Kraft, the drafters of the memorandum, agreed that [t]he June 4, 1991 memo was drafted because [they] had just heard oral complaints a few days before from Officers Larsen and Cooper regarding the assignment of officers to the DEA/APD Operation Valley Thunder Drug Task Force. Moreover, Larsen and Cooper were asked to keep the grievance secret until the matter could be heard later so as not to compromise the Task Force. Cooper's deposition testimony asserts that he and Larsen did speak to a steward and attempt to file a grievance: We got a shop steward, we talked about it, filed a grievance. During the course of Valley Thunder operation, while it was going on, Captain Walker came to the unit, told us the chief was displeased with us because we filed a labor action. Fred Thomas, who was the local administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration, had threatened to kick everybodyeverybody being the Anchorage Police Departmentout of the task force, because he felt that by us filing a grievance, we [were] jeopardizing the integrity of the task force.... At that point we agreed. Al Kraft showed up. I believe he was the president at the time. So we negotiated [that] we would suspend the grievance until after the case was concluded. Thus, it is evident from both the waiver language and the extrinsic evidence that the June 4, 1991 memorandum's purpose was to prevent Cooper and Larsen's grievance from becoming public and compromising the security of the covert operation. Because the record does not show that any other employees filed a grievance based on the operation, there is no basis for thinking that the memorandum had any purpose other than to address Larsen and Cooper's complaints. [11] Larsen and Cooper also point to MOA's actions, which can only be reasonably interpreted as suggesting that MOA believed the complaint was not time barred. MOA did not object to the grievance as untimely before it scheduled an arbitration hearing on the matter; [12] indeed, MOA's conduct in setting and confirming the arbitration dates implies that MOA intended the memorandum to waive the normal ninety-day deadline for all claims pertaining to Operation Valley Thunder. In light of the language of the memorandum of agreement and the virtually undisputed evidence on this issue, we conclude as a matter of law that the grievances were timely.