|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CCPOA - Arbitrations Archive - "1990-1995"This section features an archive of CCPOA-related arbitrations and their awards, decisions and results. Click the link to view the official .pdf (Adobe Acrobat) document related to each case. These items are listed in reverse chronological order from the most recent to the oldest, and are categorized by the date of the arbitrator's decision, not necessarily the month/year the original case was filed. November 1995 - CCPOA and State (Grievances of R. Duenas and J. Ichmnel) November 1995 - CCPOA and State (P.I.E. preference, shift swap CIW) June 1995 - State and CCPOA (alternate work schedules, Folsom) June 1995 - CCPOA and State (parole agent workload) June 1995 - CCPOA and State (access rights, Lance Corcoran) June 1995 - State and CCPOA (Night Shift Differential for Transportation Officers) March 1995 - State and CCPOA (Michael Timmons) January 1995 - CDFF and CDFEA, IAFF (40-hour duty week, overtime) December 1994 - CDC and CCPOA (4/10/40) November 1994 - CDC, San Quentin and CCPOA (Ronald Steinke) October 1994 - CDC, Sierra and CCPOA (Gary S. Spears) October 1994 - CDC and CCPOA (CRC/Patton Class Action) September 1994 - CCPOA v CDC (staffing during over-crowding conditions) September 1994 - CDC, Avenal and CCPOA (Michael Mitchell) August 1994 - CCPOA and CDC, San Quentin (Voluntary Overtime) June 1994 - CDC and CCPOA (19.01) May 1994 - CDC and CCPOA (Jacque Ellison) March 1994 - CDFEA, CCPOA v State of California January 1994 - CDC and CCPOA (Ironwood activation) November 1993 - CCPOA and CDC, Calipatria (19.01) July 1993 - CCPOA and CDC (19.01) June 1993 - CCPOA v CDC Wasco (19.01) January 1993 - CDC, DPA and CCPOA (Parole Agent Cars) October 1992 - CDC, Chuckawalla and CCPOA (John Flaherty) October 1992 - CDC and CCPOA (Doug Hines) October 1992 - CYA, Employer and CCPOA (LEAD Program) September 1992 - CCPOA v CDC (NB 1196) September 1992 - CCPOA v CDC (Dan Rafferty) August 1992 - CDC and CCPOA (David P. Prasinos) July 1992 - CCPOA v CDC, DPA (SQSP Hospital Staffing) March 1992 - CYA, Fred C. Nelles and CCPOA (Scott Cantino) August 1991 - DPA and CCPOA (Walk Through Safety and Equipment Inspection) January 1991 - CCPOA v CDC, DPA July 1990 - CDC, Employer v CCOA, Union November 1995 - CCPOA and State (grievances of R. Duenas and J. Ichmnel) CALIFORNIA CORRECTIONAL PEACE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION, Union and State of California: CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Employer Re: grievances of R. Duenas and J. Ichmnel Official document in .pdf (Adobe Acrobat) format AWARD: For the reasons set forth above, I have concluded that the Department of Corrections violated Section 13.05 of the Collective Bargaining Agreement by the actions described in the two grievances of Joseph Kimnel and the two grievances of Ralph Duenas. In view, the liability of the Department is clear. The matter is remnded to the parties for consideration of the question of remedy. If the parties are unable to resolve their differences about this matter and to reach agreement by February 1, 1996, the Arbitrator will convene, in response to an appropriate request from either party, an evidentiary hearing to deal with this issue. November 1995 - CCPOA and State (P.I.E. preference, shift swap CIW) CALIFORNIA CORRECTIONAL PEACE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION, Union and State of California: CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Employer Re: California Institution for Women; P.I.E. shift preference and shift swap grievances (Jones & Fouse - Grievants) Official document in .pdf (Adobe Acrobat) format AWARD: 1. The Department and the California Institution for Women violated MOU section 19.01(b) by failing to give notice to CCPOA of its intended change in the past practice of granting shift preferences by seniority to Permanent Intermittent Employees. Grievance No. 30325 (DPA No. 93-06-0447) is sustained. 2. As a remedy, the Department and CIW are directed negotiate with CCPOA to agreement or good faith impasse regarding the issue of shift preferences by seniority for PIEs. If agreement is reached, it shall be reduced to writing and executed by the parties. 3. The Arbitrator reserves jurisdiction with regard to implementation of the remedy. 4. The Department and CIW did not violate MOW section 19.01 (b) by failing to follow the practice of allowing PIEs to swap shifts without submitting written shift exchange requests and obtaining written approval. Grievance No. 30332 (DPA No. 93-06-0437) is denied. June 1995 - State and CCPOA (alternate work schedules, Folsom) STATE OF CALIFORNIA, Employer and CALIFORNIA CORRECTIONAL PEACE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION, Employee Organization Re: issues related to alternate work schedules, Folsom State Prison, Davis, Grievant Official document in .pdf (Adobe Acrobat) format * AWARD: The Department violated Sec. 11.14 (a) and (b) of the collective bargaining agreement by providing an inadequate statement of reasons for denying correctional counselors' requests for alternative work schedules. The Department is ordered to cease and desist from violating this provision, and to provide a specific statement of the duty-related reasons for denying a requested work schedule, in conformance with the discussion herein. The Department is directed to post this award on employee bulletin boards or other areas where employment notices are customarily posted for a period of 60 days from the date of the award. * Editor's Note: This arbitration case contains additional court documents dated September 26, 1996 which were heard in Superior Court within the County of Sacramento. June 1995 - CCPOA and State (parole agent workload) CALIFORNIA CORRECTIONAL PEACE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION, Union and STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Employer Re: Parole Agent Workload Official document in .pdf (Adobe Acrobat) format AWARD: 1. The Department shall cease and desist from further violations of its obligations under the last, best and final offer. 2. The Department shall cease and desist from further violations of its obligations to meet and confer pursuant to Section 19.01 of the parties' Memorandum of Understanding. 3. In order to remedy the evidence of widespread violations of Section 19.01, the Employer shall provide the Union informational notices regarding all changes in procedures and practices, or the implementation of new programs, having any perceived impact on working conditions. This obligation shall be in addition to meet and confer notices over matters the Employer independently concludes are subject to bargaining. 4. In accordance with the parties' stipulation, jurisdiction shall be retained to resolve any dispute over the meaning or application of the foregoing, and related aspects of the Decision and Award... VIEW the .pdf FILE to SEE THE FULL AWARD given. June 1995 - CCPOA and State (access rights, Lance Corcoran) STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS, Employer and CALIFORNIA CORRECTIONAL PEACE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION, Employee Organization Re: issues related to access rights, Lance Corcoran, Grievant Official document in .pdf (Adobe Acrobat) format AWARD: The Employer violated Sec. 2.02(b) of the Unit 6 agreement when the management escort at CCWF refused to allow the Grievant, an officer and representative of the CCPOA, the opportunity to talk confidentially to employees when so requested during a worksite tour on February 23, 1995, without legitimate business-related reasons for the refusal. The Employer also violated Sec. 2.02(b) when the escort required such conversations to be held after hours. The Employer is ordered to cease and desist from violating Sec. 2.02(b), and to permit CCPOA representatives the opportunity to talk confidentially with employees, as provided in Sec. 2.02(b). When exercising the discretion to require that such conversations be held at an alternate location, the escort or other management representative is required to articulate to the Union representative the business-related reasons for that requirement. The Employer is ordered to post a copy of the award portion of this Decision and Award for 30 calendar days at CCWF at all locations where employment and labor relations notices are customarily posted. June 1995 - State and CCPOA (Night Shift Differential for Transportation Officers) CALIFORNIA CORRECTIONAL PEACE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION and STATE OF CALIFORNIA Re: Night Shift Differential for Transportation Officers Official document in .pdf (Adobe Acrobat) format DECISION: Based upon a careful consideration of all of the evidence and argument, it is the decision of the Arbitrator that the State of California did not violate Section 15.03a of the Memorandum of Understanding by not paying the night shift differential to Transportation Officers. March 1995 - State and CCPOA (Michael Timmons) THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, State and CALIFORNIA CORRECTIONAL PEACE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION, CCPOA Re: Grievance of Michael Timmons Official document in .pdf (Adobe Acrobat) format AWARD: The State is ordered to pay the grievant pursuant to Section 13.05(g), four hours pay at time-and-one-half. January 1995 - CDFF and CDFEA, IAFF (40-hour duty week, overtime) CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY AND FIRE PROTECTION and CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, LOCAL 2881, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FIRE FIGHTERS Re: 40-hour duty week and overtime Official document in .pdf (Adobe Acrobat) format DECISION: The Department did not violate the memorandum of unchmdq when it implemented a year-round 40-hour duty period for Forester 1's. The portion of the grievances raising this claim is denied. The Department violated the memorandum of understanding when it changed the way it assigned fire suppression work to Forester 1's following the implementation of the year-round 40-hour duty period. The portion of the grievances raising this claim is granted. As a remedy for the portion of the grievances that has been granted, the Department is ordered to cease and desist from considering overtime time costs as the principal factor in dispatching Forester 1's to fire suppression work and to utilize the same method it uses to assign Ranger Is in dispatching Forester 1's until agreement on a change is reached with the Union or the MOU expires. Thc Department is also ordered to pay Forester 1's the amount of overtime earnings they lost as a result of this violation of the MOU. The identification of the individuals entitled to a remedy and the calculation of the amount of damages they are to be paid is remanded to the parties. With the permission of the parties, I am retaining jurisdiction over the impiemcntation of this award. December 1994 - CDC, Susanville and CCPOA (4/10/40) STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Employer and CALIFORNIA CORRECTIONAL PEACE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION, Employee Organization Involving issues related to 4/10/40 work schedule, Susanville Official document in .pdf (Adobe Acrobat) format DECISION: The California Correctional Center did not violate Sec. 11.14 or Sec. 19.02 of the memorandum or understanding when it denied the 4/10/40 requests on or about September 25, 1992; however, it did not comply with the procedures set forth in Sec. 11.14(b) when it failed to provide an adequate written explanation of the reasons for its decision that granting a 4/10/40 work schedule would not meet the needs of the institution. The CCC is ordered to cease and desist from failing to satisfy this requirement of Sec. 11.14 (b). November 1994 - CDC, San Quentin and CCPOA (Ronald Steinke) CDC (San Quentin State Prison) and CCPOA Grievance of Ronald Steinke Official document in .pdf (Adobe Acrobat) format AWARD: The Department did not violate 5.03 and 6.06 of the memorandum of understanding. The grievance is denied. October 1994 - CDC, Sierra and CCPOA (Gary S. Spears) CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS (SIERRA CONSERVATION CENTER) and CALIFORNIA CORRECTIONAL PEACE OFFICERS' ASSOCIATION Grievance of Gary S. Spears Official document in .pdf (Adobe Acrobat) format DECISION: The Department did not violate Sections 5.03 and 6.06 of the memorandum of understanding. The grievance is denied. October 1994 - CDC and CCPOA (CRC/Patton Class Action) DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS and CALIFORNIA CORRECTIONAL PEACE OFFICERS ASSOC CRC/Patton Class Action Official document in .pdf (Adobe Acrobat) format DECISION: Based upon a careful consideration of all of the evidence and argument, it is the decision of the Arbitrator that the change in headquarters is not more than 35 miles between the old headquarters and new headquarters. September 1994 - CCPOA v CDC (staffing during over-crowding conditions) CALIFORNIA CORRECTIONAL PEACE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION and STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS Re: state-wide dispute concerning additional staffing at facilities when overcrowding conditions arise; Centinela Correctional Facility, et. al. Official document in .pdf (Adobe Acrobat) format DECISION: The above Agreement will be adhered to by the State Employer and CCPOA, and each of them. This Agreement shall be considered an amendment to the MOU, which expires on June 30, 1995. * SEE the FULL DOCUMENT for the FULL AGREEMENT September 1994 - CDC, Avenal and CCPOA (Michael Mitchell) DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS (AVENAL STATE PRISON) and CALIFORNIA CORRECTIONAL PEACE OFFICERS' ASSOCIATION Grievance of Michael Mitchell Official document in .pdf (Adobe Acrobat) format AWARD: The Department did not violate the memorandum of understanding when it ordered the grievant not to spend his lunch break in the Facility IV workchange. The grievance is denied. August 1994 - CCPOA and CDC, San Quentin (Voluntary Overtime) CALIFORNIA CORRECTIONAL PEACE OFFICERS' ASSOCIATION, Union, and STATE OF CALIFORNIA (DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS), Employer RE: San Quentin State Prison Voluntary Overtime - Correctional Counselors Official document in .pdf (Adobe Acrobat) format AWARD: 1. The State violated section 13.05 of the Agreement by failing to offer shifts on the basis of seniority to correctional counselor 1's assigned to the San Quentin Reception Center, specifically to Joseph MacKenzie and Ruthmarie Frank, on August 7 and 8, 1993. 2. As a remedy, grievants MacKenzie and Frank are entitled to be paid for eight hours at the applicable overtime rate of pay. 3. The State was excused by operational needs on August 7 and 8, 1993 from assigning overtime at the Reception Center on the basis of seniority to correctional counselor 1's assigned to the San Quentin Main Line. 4. Computation of backpay due to grievants MacKanzie and Frank is remanded to the parties, the Arbitrator reserving jurisdiction in the event that the parties cannot agree. June 1994 - CDC and CCPOA (19.01) CALIFORNIA CORRECTIONAL PEACE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION, Union, and STATE OF CALIFORNIA (DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS), Employer Official document in .pdf (Adobe Acrobat) format DECISION: Based upon the record and arguments in this case, the bench decision of June 30, 1994 is confirmed, as follows: The grievance is denied. May 1994 - CDC and CCPOA (Jacque Ellison) CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS and CALIFORNIA CORRECTIONAL PEACE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION Grievance of Jacque Ellison Official document in .pdf (Adobe Acrobat) format AWARD: The Department did not threaten or take reprisals against the grievant for her participation in negotiations in violation Section 5.03 of the memorandum of understanding. The grievance is denied. March 1994 - CDFEA, CCPOA v State of California CDF Employees Association and CCPOA, Unions and State of California, Employer and Occupational Health Services, Inc., Party in Interest Official document in .pdf (Adobe Acrobat) format AGREEMENT: In response to an arbitration filed on behalf of Bargaining Units 6 and 8, the exclusive representatives (California Correctional Peace Officers Association and the California Department of Forestry Employees Association) and the State of California, have agreed to the following settlement regarding an entitlement to Employee Assistance Progm Services. 1. Employees in Bargaining Unit 6 are eligible for Level 1 service under the State Employee Assistance Program (EAP) effective on Christmas eve, December 23, 1993. Employees eligible for these services may access their mtitlement to scven counseling sessions for the ernploya, seven counseling sessions for a spouse, and scven counseling sessions for children in the aggregate by calling the toll free, "800" telephone number listed at the bottom of this letter. This program is based on an entitlement of sessions per problem type, per fiscal year. This is the level of service already provided to the California Association of Highway Patrolmen (CAHP), and the California Department of Forestry Employees' Association (CD FEA). 2. Members of Bargaining Unit 6 and Bargaining Unit 8 who accessed EM services after July 1, 1992 and might have been denied access to their authorized number of - sessions, may now receive counseling up to their maximum number of sessions by calling the toll fret "800" number. 3. Members of Bargaining Unit 6 and Bargaining Unit 8 who were denied access to their full authorized number of sessions and who then went to a private counselor at their own expense may now receive reimbursement for out-of-pocket paid sessions up to the maximum they would have had access to under the State EM?. To receive reimbursement for these services, mail a copy of a paid invoice for paid counseling services with a brief explanation to: Department of Personnel Administration, Accounting Office, Millie Pope, 15 15 S. St., North Bldg., Suite 400, Sacramento, California 958 14. Please include your address and telephone number with any requests for reimbursement. January 1994 - CDC and CCPOA (Ironwood activation) STATE OF CALIFORNIA, CDC and CALIFORNIA CORRECTIONAL PEACE OFFICERS ASSOC. RE: Involving the sharing of salary goal information during meet and confer negotiations for the Ironwood activation. Official document in .pdf (Adobe Acrobat) format AWARD: During the current round of meet and confer negotiations, the State has not violated Section 19.01 of the Agreement by refusing to provide the salary savings goal information for Ironwood Unit 6 employees. November 1993 - CCPOA v CDC Calipatria (19.01) CALIFORNIA CORRECTIONAL PEACE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION, Union, and STATE OF CALIFORNIA (DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS), Employer RE: Section 19.01 Grievance: Diversions - Calapatria State Prison Official document in .pdf (Adobe Acrobat) format DECISION: Based upon the record and arguments in this case, the bench decision issued on October 29, 1993 is confirmed, as follows: The grievance is denied. July 1993 - CCPOA and CDC (redirections/diversions) CALIFORNIA CORRECTIONAL PEACE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION, Complainant, and STATE OF CALIFORNIA, Respondent Involving 19.01 grievance on redirections/diversions. Official document in .pdf (Adobe Acrobat) format DECISION: Since there was no change, Section 19.01 was not violated and the grievance is denied. That is my decision in the matter. June 1993 - CCPOA v CDC Wasco (19.01) CALIFORNIA CORRECTIONAL PEACE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION (NB1294) and CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, WASCO Grievance: Violation of 19.01 Official document in .pdf (Adobe Acrobat) format AWARD: The Facility violated Section 19.0 1 when it failed to notice CCPOA about its intention to change from requiring control booth officers to sling the HK-94 to requiring them to rack the weapon. Upon demand by CCPOA, the Facility is ordered to meet and coder over the impact of this change, in accordance with 19.01. January 1993 - CDC, DPA and CCPOA (Parole Agent Cars) State of California, Department of Personnel Administration and California Correctional Peace Officers Association Re: Parole Agent Cars Grievance Official document in .pdf (Adobe Acrobat) format REMEDY: The remedy, in my view, should be two-fold: (1), the Department of Corrections is directed to withdraw Joint Exhibit 3; and ( 2 ), the Department of Corrections is directed to continue the custom and practice at issue here, unless and until the parties to the MOU reach a mutual agreement as required by the last paragraph of Section 19.01. The Arbitrator shall retain jurisdiction to deal with such questions that may arise between the parties as to the implementation of this award. October 1992 - CDC, Chuckawalla and CCPOA (John Flaherty) CALIFORNIA DEPT OF CORRECTIONS, CHUCKAWALLA VALLEY STATE PRISON and CALIFORNIA CORRECTIONAL PEACE OFFICERS ASSOC Grievance of John Flaherty Official document in .pdf (Adobe Acrobat) format AWARD: The State did not violate Section 3.05 when it denied the Grievant voluntary overtime during his vacation in September 1990. The grievance is denied. October 1992 - CDC and CCPOA (Doug Hines) CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS and CALIFORNIA CORRECTIONAL PEACE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION Grievances of Doug Hines Official document in .pdf (Adobe Acrobat) format AWARD: The Department has violated Section 5.03(a) of the MOU by imposing the February 9, 1990 two-step pay reduction for one year, issuing the November 1, 1989 letter of instruction on sick leave use, and the February 22, 1990 supplemental performance evaluation. The Department violated Section 10.02 of the MOU when it denied the grievant sick leave credit for October 23, 1989. The Department violated Section 9.06(b) of the MOU when it issued the April 25, 1990 letter of instruction. The grievances raising these issues are granted. The grievances raising all other issues are denied. The Department is ordered to post the attached cease and desist order, signed by an authorized agent. The notice shall be posted in all work locations at San Quentin where bulletins to employees are customarily placed. The posting shall be maintained for a period of thirty consecutive days. Reasonable steps shall be taken to insure that the notice is not reduced in size, defaced, altered or covered by any material. The Department shall send written notifications of the actions taken to comply with this order to the arbitrator within fourteen days of the date of this award, with a copy sent to the Association. The Department is ordered to rescind the two-step pay reduction, the letters of instruction and the supplemental performance evaluation. All references to these actions shall be removed from the grievant's personnel and supervisory files. The grievant's sick leave credit is to be restored and all reference to the denial of sick leave credit shall be removed from his personnel and supervisory files and any other attendance records. With the permission of the parties, I am retaining jurisdiction over the implementation of this decision for sixty days. October 1992 - CYA, Employer and CCPOA (LEAD Program) CALIFORNIA YOUTH AUTHORITY, Employer and CALIFORNIA CORRECTIONAL PEACE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION, Employee Organization Involving issues related to youth counselor assignments, LEAD Program Official document in .pdf (Adobe Acrobat) format AWARD: The California Youth Authority violated Sec. 13.08 of the Memorandum of Understanding when it implemented the LEAD Program at the Preston School of Industry without negotiating with the Union a modification of the contract to permit the bidding and shift assignment changes that it proposed for the Program. The CYA violated Sec. 19.01 of the MOU when it implemented the LEAD Program without reaching agreement or impasse in negotiations over the impact of the Program on terms and conditions of employment of Unit 6 employees. The remedy for the violations of Sec. 13.08 was provided in the Bench Award, issued in the August 3, 1992, Expedited Decision, attached hereto as Attachment A. As indicated in footnote 2, p. 3, of that Expedited Decision, the Union declared in its closing arguments that a remedy for violation of Sec. 13.08 would resolve the dispute, and that no addition remedy was required to correct any violation of Sec. 19.01. Subsequent to receipt of that Award, the Union notified the undersigned Arbitrator that it did wish the merits of the Sec. 19.02 issue to be addressed in this supporting opinion, but confirmed that no additional remedy was required. According, the Discussion and Award offered here finds that the Department violated Sec. 19.01 as well as Sec. 13.08, but offers no modification of the August 3 remedy. September 1992 - CCPOA v CDC (NB 1196) CALIFORNIA CORRECTIONAL PEACE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION and STATE OF CALIFORNIA, CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS (NB 1196) (CDC-San Quentin) Grievance: Weapons Qualification (Transportation) Official document in .pdf (Adobe Acrobat) format DECISION: 1. California State Prison San Quentin did not violate its obligation under Section 19.01 of the Memorandum of Understanding when it unilaterally changed quarterly weapons qualifications standards for institutional transportation officers. 2. This change did not mult in a violation of Section 13.05 of the Memorandum of Understanding, "Voluntary Overtime by Seniority." September 1992 - CCPOA v CDC (Dan Rafferty) CALIFORNIA CORRECTIONAL PEACE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION, Union, and STATE OF CALIFORNIA (DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS), Employer RE: Grievance of Dan Rafferty Official document in .pdf (Adobe Acrobat) format AWARD: The Employer did not violate section 5.03 of the Agreement with respect to the March 15, 1990 meeting, the March 20, 1990 counseling memo, or the April 15, 1990 meeting. The grievance is denied. August 1992 - CDC and CCPOA (David P. Prasinos) STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS, Employer and CALIFORNIA CORRECTIONAL PEACE OFFICERS ASSN., Employee Organization Involving issues related to reprisal for protected activity, David P. Prasinos, Grievant Official document in .pdf (Adobe Acrobat) format AWARD: The State violated Sec. 5.03 and 6.06 of the collective bargaining agreement by dismissing the Grievant, Officer David Prasinos. The Department is ordered to reinstate the Grievant to his prior position, with back pay, seniority and other benefits lost because of his wrongful termination, for all but a 30-day period constituting a justified disciplinary suspension. The amount of back pay is to be reduced by earnings, if any, from other employment during the time between his termination and the date he is offered reinstatement. July 1992 - CCPOA v CDC, DPA CALIFORNIA CORRECTIONAL PEACE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION, on behalf of itself and its members, Petitioner, vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, STATE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL ADMINISTRATION, Respondent Involving San Quentin Hospital Staffing Official document in .pdf (Adobe Acrobat) format March 1992 - CYA, Fred C. Nelles and CCPOA (Scott Cantino) CALIFORNIA YOUTH AUTHORITY, FRED C. NELLES SCHOOL and CALIFORNIA CORRECTIONAL PEACE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION Grievance of Scott T. Cantino Official document in .pdf (Adobe Acrobat) format AWARD: The State has demonstrated that, even if the Authority improperly considered the Grievant's union activities, Morales was better qualified for the Assistant Chief of Security position and would have been promoted over the Grievant in any case. For this reason, the grievance is denied. August 1991 - DPA and CCPOA STATE OF CALIFORNIA, Department of Personnel Administration and CALIFORNIA CORRECTIONAL PEACE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION Official document in .pdf (Adobe Acrobat) format AWARD: A. This matter was heard at the California Institution for Men, Chino, California on February 6 and April 26, 1991 and at the Department of Personnel Administration, Sacramento, California on April 17, 1991, testimony beind heard and transcribed, exhibits being received and oral concluding arguments being heard. Appearances: for the State: Linda M. Nelson, Esq., Labor Relations Counsel: for CCPOA: Matthew J. Gauger, Esq., Senior Hearing Representative. B. The Award is that the California Institution for Men did not violate the Agreement operative between the parties when the warden denied permission to the Union to make an "inspection of safety and equipment tour" on and after March 23, 1990. January 1991 - CCPOA v CDC, DPA CALIFORNIA CORRECTIONAL PEACE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION, on behalf of itself and its members, Petitioner vs STATE OF CALIFORNIA, STATE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL ADMINISTRATION Official document in .pdf (Adobe Acrobat) format AWARD: a.The parties to this Award were and are the State Employer, by and through the Department of Personnel Administration (hereinafter "DPA"), the California Department of Corrections (hereinafter "CDC"), the California Youth Authority (hereinafter "CYA") and the California Correctional Peace Officers Association (hereinafter "CCPOA"). b.Procedural Background The parties have had two full days of hearing and have contemplated more. Based on further discussions, and their submission of this document to the Arbitrator, and by their consent, Arbitrator Kathy Kelly hereby enters the following Award: 1. Pursuant to Section 19.01 of the Unit 6 Memorandum of Understanding (hereinafter "MOU"), CDC and CYA shall notify CCPOA at least thirty (30) days prior to instituting changes within the scope of representation as defined in the Ralph C. Dills Act. Notice shall be sent to CCPOA, at its State office, to the attention of CCPOA's Chief Administrative officer. In addition, the Employer may send copies to CCPOA at other appropriate levels (e.g., a potentially affected local facility). 2. Upon request of CCPOA, the State Employer shall meet and confer in good faith pursuant to Section 19.01 and the Dills Act prior to implementation, until mutual agreement or good faith impasse is reached. Provided, however, that legitimate business necessity, as discussed at pages 22-24 of the Arbitration Award of Frank Silver dated July 13, 1990, may excuse the completion of such meet and confer process prior to implementation and/or the thirty (30) day notice requirement of Paragraph 1, supra, so long as the Employer tries in good faith to carry out and complete the meet and confer process as soon as possible thereafter. 3. Upon the entry of this Award, the Director or appropriate Deputy Director of CDC and CYA shall direct all their managerial and supervisory subordinates to inform the Labor Relations Department or Division of their department of any change that is in the scope of Paragraphs 1 through 2 above of this Award, that is proposed. Subordinates will further be directed to inform their Labor Relations Department or Division in a timely manner, calculated to allow the State to meet its obligations under the MOU between the parties and under this Award. CDC and CYA will furnish copies of the above described directives from the Directors to CCPOA promptly upon their issuance. 4. CDC and CCPOA acknowledge that a dispute has existed between them concerning whether the "90-day" plans constitute sufficient notice for purposes of Section 19.01. CDC and CCPOA agree to expand upon the existing procedures in order to attempt to resolve these differences. CDC agrees to provide the information currently contained in the 90-day plans to CCPOA transmitted on an institution-byinstitution basis. As part of this procedure, CDC may provide supplemental information concerning any changes that may have an impact upon scope issues that are not identified in the 90-day plan. Within five (5) working days after providing such information, CDC and CCPOA will meet to review the information provided to CCPOA and to determine the matters that are properly subject to a meet and confer on a statewide level as well as those matters upon which it is jointly agreed may be referred to negotiations at the local level. Should the procedures set forth in this subparagraph prove insufficient to resolve notice issues, CDC and CCPOA agree to meet and confer over alternative solutions. 5. Within ten (10) working days of receipt of any of the notices described in this Award, CCPOA may request a meet and confer in good faith as defined herein, over matters within the scope of bargaining under the Ralph C. Dills Act. Where CCPOA requests to meet and confer over the impact of a decision which is not in scope, CCPOA shall identify the area(s) of impact to be covered in the negotiations. If CCPOA does not request to meet and confer in good faith within the aforementioned ten (10) working days, a waiver of the right to meet and confer under this Award and/or under Section 19.01 of the MOU will be deemed to have taken place. 6. Nothing herein precludes the parties from mutually agreeing to conduct meet and confer sessions they may schedule other than as determined in this Award. 7. CDC and CCPOA agree that this Award shall be enforceable as between them through the expedited arbitration process of Section 6.14© of the Unit 6 MOU, which will operate as follows for purposes of Section 19.01 violations: (a)Except for injunctive relief proceedings to preserve the status quo pending the arbitration process, prior to proceeding to any court, either party must first take the matter to expedited arbitration as described herein. (b)This Award hereby establishes a permanent panel of three arbitrators who will hear disputes under this Award on a rotational basis. The arbitrators initially agreed upon are: (1) Frank Silver; (2) Barbara Chvany and (3) Norm Brand. (c)Each arbitrator will be furnished within thirty (30) days of the issuance of this Award with a copy of the Unit 6 MOU; the arbitration Award of Frank Silver, dated July 13, 1990; a copy of the Dills Act; and a copy of the stipulated arbitration Award in this case. (d)In the event that one or more of the arbitrators selected above declines to serve as a member of the panel, or if an arbitrator subsequently withdraws from participation, or if the parties mutually agree that an arbitrator should be replaced, a new panel member shall be selected by the following means: (1)Mutual agreement of the parties; (2)In the absence of mutual agreement, CDC or CCPOA may obtain a list of five (5) arbitrators from the State Mediation, and Conciliation Service. Within five (5) business days after receipt of the list, CDC and CCPOA shall meet and shall alternately strike names until one name remains, and that person shall be the new panel member. (e)If either party believes that the other (CCPOA or CDC) has violated this Award, the dispute shall be referred to the arbitrator next up on the list, the list starting in the order as described above. Such request may be made by telephone or Telefax to the Chief Counsel of DPA, on the one hand, or to the Chief Counsel of CCPOA, on the other. If made by Telefax, copies of said request shall be sent, in the case of the Employer, to the Labor Relations office of CDC and to the DPA Unit 6 Chief Negotiator. If by telephone, CCPOA agrees to contact the CDC Chief of Labor Relations in advance of contacting the DPA Chief Counsel. (f)Upon receiving such request, the parties hereby agree to schedule an immediate arbitration with the arbitrator next on rotation, as described above. If possible, an in-person arbitration hearing shall be conducted within five (5) normal business days following the request for immediate arbitration. If the arbitrator's schedule does not allow for the scheduling of a hearing within this time frame, a telephonic hearing shall be conducted unless the parties mutually agree to an in-person hearing at a later date. If the arbitrator is not available for either an in-person or a telephonic hearing, the next arbitrator in rotation shall be contacted. (g)CDC, DPA, and CCPOA shall not be deemed to have waived any procedural defenses (e.g., timeliness; arbitrability). Instead, such issues shall be reserved for the arbitrator. (h)The scope of the issues to be determined by the arbitrator shall be limited to this Award and the MOU between the parties. (i)At the conclusion of the arbitration hearing, in-person or telephonic, the arbitrator shall render a bench decision on whether or not a party (CDC or CCPOA) has violated this Award or Section 19.01, and if so, what, if any, is an appropriate remedy This bench decision shall be followed by a written Decision and Award within ten (10) working days. (j)If CCPOA successfully petitions the Superior Court to confirm the stipulated arbitration award herein as a judgment pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 1285, et seq., CDC and CCPOA further agree that with the adoption of the expedited arbitration process, the only matters subject to subsequent contempt proceedings are: (1) failure of CDC or CCPOA to proceed to arbitration; or (2) failure of CDC or CCPOA to abide by the terms of an arbitration award issued pursuant to the expedited process described herein. Provided, however, that the validity of such an award may be challenged collaterally in contempt proceedings as a defense thereto. (k)Notwithstanding the above, all grievances arising out of facts which occurred on or before January 3, 1991, will not be subject to this paragraph 7. 8. Upon the expiration of the present MOU between the parties (i.e., June 30, 1991), CCPOA may at any time thereafter send to DPA by first class mail a notice of intent to end this Award and Order, or to modify same. Upon receipt of the notice by the State employer, the parties shall meet and confer in good faith in an effort to modify or extend the Award and order by mutual agreement. If mutual agreement is reached, then the parties shall present by means of stipulation, the agreement to the arbitrator, or the Court if this Award is confirmed, for amendment by that forum. If no mutual agreement is reached by the end of the thirty day period, or by a mutually agreed upon extension thereof, then this Award or Order shall cease to be of force and effect. 9.CCPOA shall not seek to confirm this Award as a judgment against CYA. 10.Nothing in this Award is deemed a finding of past violation of any of the provisions of Section 19.01, Unit 6 MOU. 11.CDC and CCPOA will sign the terms of a side letter they have agreed to regarding budget information. July 1990 - CDC, Employer v CCOA, Union STATE OF CALIFORNIA (DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS), Employer and CALIFORNIA CORRECTIONAL PEACE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION, Union Official document in .pdf (Adobe Acrobat) format AWARD: 1. The Department of Corrections violated section 19.01(b) of the Agreement by implementation of the HIV pilot project prior to completion of meeting and conferring with the California Correctional Peace Officers Association regarding the effects of the pilot project on the working conditions of employees represented by CCPOA. 2. As a remedy, the Department shall meet and confer with CCPOA, upon request, regarding procedures for accommodating the requirements of the consent decree in Gates v. Deukmejian, No. CIV S-87-1636 LKK-JFM (U.S.D.C., E.D.CA) with the rights and obligations established by section 19.01(b) of the Collective Bargaining Agreement between the parties. If agreement is reached as a result of meeting and conferring, it shall be reduced to writing and executed by the parties. 3. The Arbitrator reserves jurisdiction with regard to implementation of the remedy. |
