In the ongoing public back-and-forth between a local police union and Douglas County officials, the county is taking the fight to court, arguing that sheriff’s employees don’t have the right to push for changes in their workplace through a union.
At issue is a state law passed in 2022 that grants certain county employees collective bargaining rights, or the ability to negotiate salaries and other aspects of their jobs by acting as an organized group.
In March, the county’s elected leaders said they stand with Sheriff Darren Weekly in opposition to a local branch of the Fraternal Order of Police’s efforts to unionize, arguing the move would hamper the interests of employees and the public.
The county argues in a lawsuit it filed May 7 that the Colorado Collective Bargaining by County Employees Act, or COBCA, does not apply to sheriff’s employees. The sheriff and county commissioners are listed as plaintiffs in the lawsuit, which was filed in Denver District Court against the Colorado Department of Labor and Employment.
In the court case, the county argues that legally the sheriff’s office and county government are separate entities.
That’s even though the sheriff’s office’s budget is controlled by Douglas County commissioners.
“Under both the Colorado Constitution and applicable statutes, sheriffs and boards of county commissioners are treated as separate public entities having different powers,” a 1999 case cited in Douglas’ lawsuit complaint says.
The Douglas sheriff is participating in the lawsuit “because we believe COBCA, among other things, is unconstitutional,” said Deborah Takahara, a spokesperson for the sheriff’s office.
In the case, the county is represented by attorney Suzanne Taheri, also known as Suzanne Staiert, a former Arapahoe County Republican Party chair.
The local union branch, Colorado FOP Lodge 47, has not responded to the Douglas County News-Press for comment on the case.
‘Has no control’
The issue of whether a county sheriff is separate from a board of county commissioners has come up in Colorado before.
One of the court cases cited in Douglas’ lawsuit complaint, Bristol v. Board of County Commissioners of Clear Creek, stated that the Clear Creek County commissioners have the authority to adopt an overall budget for all county officials, including sheriffs.
But “the Board of County Commissioners has no control over the Sheriff’s employees,” the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit wrote in the 2002 case.
In addition to arguing that the state’s collective bargaining law does not apply to the sheriff’s office, the suit also argues that Douglas’ compliance with that law is optional because the law amounts to an “unfunded mandate.”
“Colorado statute prohibits a state mandate on any local government ‘unless the state provides additional moneys to reimburse such local government for the costs of such new state mandate,’ and, if reimbursement funds are not provided, the mandate ‘shall be optional on the part of the local government,’” the lawsuit complaint says.
Conflict came before lawsuit
Prior to the lawsuit, the county also argued that the FOP misled employees, leading them to believe the sheriff supported unionization efforts when he did not.
“This trickery by the union caused many employees to sign their names in support of a union because they were falsely led to believe Sheriff Weekly supported it,” county Commissioner George Teal alleged in a video message.
The sheriff’s office provided the News-Press the letter that Teal apparently referred to.
“In the spirit of transparency and support, I met with Sheriff Weekly to share the survey results and discuss our proposed course of action. Sheriff Weekly expressed his continued support for us and the FOP,” said the letter, signed as “president” of the local FOP branch.
Also before the lawsuit, the local police union accused Weekly and other Douglas County officials of engaging in unfair labor practices during the unionization efforts.
The accusations came as the union canceled an election that would have allowed sheriff’s office employees to choose to be represented by the union.
The union indicated that it may try to reschedule the election in the coming months.
“Despite recent events, we remain committed to moving forward with this important initiative,” the FOP branch wrote on its Facebook page, adding: “We decided that going forward would not be prudent because we believe that the Sheriff and the County have committed multiple unfair labor practices under Colorado Law.”
Asked whether the sheriff’s office has filed any response with the Colorado Department of Labor and Employment to the FOP’s allegations of unfair labor practices, Takahara said on May 8: “The Sheriff’s Office has not received anything from the Department of Labor requiring a response.”