Our lodge secretary is one of those guys who is all about current events. On July 31, 2024, he sent me a text that stopped me dead in my tracks. “Something flashed on the bottom of the news channel,” he messaged me. He went on to relay that the Arizona Supreme Court had ruled that union release time for public employees was a violation of the Arizona Constitution.

Now, we all know that life has a way of serving up chaos. If it were a tennis player, you’d be dealing with a pro. It toys with us while we run ragged all over the court. But this problem? It had a nasty topspin on it, the kind that could mean game, set, match for my labor release assignment within our police department. And it could mean that legal challenges are headed your way if you are assigned to a labor release position in your jurisdiction.

The Arizona ruling will serve as a basis for similar challenges across the country.

The ruling

Two City of Phoenix employees sued, contending that the labor release positions the City provided to a union representing tradespeople violated their First Amendment rights and the state’s gift clause (Gilmore, et al. v. Gallego, et al.). The union joined with the City in responding to the action. The respondents’ initial motion for summary judgment was granted. The two employees appealed, and the case was ultimately heard by the Arizona Supreme Court.

While the court found no violation of the employees’ First Amendment rights, it ruled that city-funded labor release positions, as structured in that case, violated the state’s gift clause.

Deeper dive

A city ordinance allows for my labor release assignment, which gives me the opportunity to work full time with police and city leadership to, for example, efficiently resolve issues that impact my member officers. Working full time to advocate for law enforcement had been a dream come true. Was it all really over? “At least it’s been a good run,” I said to myself.

But I dove deeper into the ruling and learned that labor release for the trades union in the neighboring jurisdiction was handled differently than how we were doing it. For them, at least according to context provided in the ruling, labor release meant the employee was released from all responsibility as a city employee to pursue whatever union agenda the labor representative wanted — essentially with zero supervisory oversight. That’s where the Arizona Supreme Court appeared to focus its attention.

Cities have the right to assign work and job titles as they see fit. But city-funded labor release employees must perform work that serves a “public purpose,” rather than work that solely benefits the union. My work, I would go on to argue, stood in clear contrast to the types of labor release assignments on which the court had set its sights.

Yep, life’s service can sure be a son of a gun. But this time, I was prepared with a powerful return shot. Which is cool — because I suck at tennis.

Reputation and communication

Our chief of police called me into his office the following week. I already knew what he wanted. By that time, I was sure our city manager had heard about the ruling and had directed our chief to figure things out. While it was rumored that LEO labor representatives around the Phoenix metro area were being stripped of their labor release status based on the ruling, I wasn’t worried. I had been working my ass off — for our department, yes, but also for our taxpayers, for whom I had taken that oath. And I had the receipts. Just about all of my work had in fact served a public purpose.

This hard work had formed the basis for professional, respectful relationships with our police and city leadership. I knew they weren’t looking for a way to cancel me. My reputation, I was confident, positioned me as a force for good within our department and city. The chief assured me that city leadership saw value in my work. They weren’t looking to use this as an opportunity to wipe me out. But we had to make sure we were in compliance with the ruling.

I was prepared. I had a message and a list. I first asked the chief to assure our city manager that I was aware of the ruling, understood it and was in 100% compliance with it. I next reviewed with the chief some of the important things my assignment had me doing on a daily basis:

• Collaborating with management to solve problems
• Acting as a peer representative in accordance with state law
• Serving the community directly through outreach event planning
• Advising in multiple departmental committees
• Liaising between employees and human resources
• Reviewing and advising with respect to police policy and protocol
• Monitoring and intervening with respect to employee wellness concerns

And I reminded the chief that I wasn’t some cowboy off riding rodeos with no supervisory oversight. “Chief, I report to you,” I reminded him. “You call, I answer.” I told him that, last week, I was in 98% compliance with the ruling and that a couple of minor tweaks now had me batting a thousand. I agreed with the chief that FOP executive board meetings and membership meetings probably didn’t serve a public purpose, so I assured him that I would begin managing those and other functions that benefit solely the FOP on my own time.

The chief had my back. I also got support from city management. And so I soldier on in my assignment, advocating for my members while serving a public purpose every single day.

The takeaway for labor release

The Arizona ruling will serve as a basis for similar challenges across the country. But remember — it’s not so much about the title of your assignment. The focus should be on your daily work and how it benefits the public. Be prepared for this legal fight. Life is on the tennis court every single day, honing its ability to serve you chaos. Part of me wishes life were more like golf. But my drive sucks too, so it is what it is.