Opinion ID: 1914309
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Union's Appeal.

Text: The union asserts that the district court erred in upholding PERB's determination that the second sentence of section 10.02 of the existing agreement did not involve a topic of mandatory bargaining. We disagree. As the agency correctly observed, that sentence merely purports to state the measure of the City's liability for failing to honor its contractual duty to provide liability insurance for police officers for acts and omissions in the performance of their duties. We find nothing in section 20.9 that mandates bargaining as to the measure of the City's breach-of-contract liability. In so deciding, however, we in no way suggest that the legal measure of damages for such failure to insure liability differs from that which was described in section 10.02 of the existing agreement. We have considered all issues presented and conclude that the judgment of the district court should be affirmed on both appeals. AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.