RECENT UPDATES

CCPOA - Arbitrations Archive - "1995-1999"

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.

October 1999 - CCPOA and State (Involving issues related to union bulletin boards)
April 1999 - CCPOA v State (representation rights CSP-Corcoran interrogations)
February 1999 - CCPOA and State (Salary Savings Diversion Plan)
December 1998 - CCPOA v State (PIE Housing Stipends - San Quentin)
April 1997 - CCPOA v State (parole agent workload)
December 1996 - CCPOA v State (union bulletin boards, Robert Ferroggiaro)
October 1996 - CCPOA v State (right to union representation)
July 1996 - CCPOA v State (shift swaps)
May 1996 - CCPOA v State (salary savings diversion plan)
April 1996 - CCPOA v State (smoking policy)
March 1996 - CCPOA v State (Enhanced Tracking System grievance Section 19.01)
March 1996 - CCPOA v State (Representation Rights of Edie Tiller and Daniel Farr)
February 1996 - CCPOA and State (Involving Section 9.10(d) Personnel)
January 1996 - CCPOA v State (19.01 - Andrew Banks)
January 1996 - CCPOA and State (class action)

October 1999 - CCPOA and State, CDC (union bulletin boards)

CALIFORNIA CORRECTIONAL PEACE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION
and
State of California: CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
Re: Involving issues related to union bulletin boards, San Quentin.

Official document in .pdf (Adobe Acrobat) format

AWARD:
The Department violated Sec. 2.06 of the contract when it removed the cartoon from bulletin boards and the cartoon and related leaflet from the literature distribution box at San Quentin Prison on October 21, 1997. The Department violated Sec. 5.03 and Sec. 6.06 of the contract by canceling a facility tour for CCPOA representatives on October 21, 1997.

The Department is ordered to cease and desist from prohibiting the Union from posting material relating to CCPOA activities when the material does not violate the standards set out in Sec. 2.06(e) of the collective bargaining agreement.

The Department is ordered to cease and desist from violating Sec. 5.03 and Sec. 6.06 by interfering with and denying Union representatives the right to represent unit employees, guaranteed by Sec. 3515.5 of the Dills Act, and the employees' right to be represented, guaranteed by Sec. 3515 of the Dills Act, in reprisal for a Union representative's exercise of the right to post Union-related material on the CCPOA bulletin board, permitted under Sec. 2.06.

Within 35 days of receipt of this Award, the Department is to post a copy of this Award on the Union bulletin boards at San Quentin Prison and/or at other work locations at that facility where notices to employees customarily are posted. Such posting shall be maintained for a period of 30 days.

By stipulation of the parties the undersigned Abitrator retains jurisdiction over this Award to resolve any disputes that may arise over implementation of the remedy ordered herein, but not to reconsider the merits of this decision, which is final. Jurisdiction is retained for a period of 120 days from the date of this Award, which may be extended at the request of either partly based on showing of cause for such an extension.

April 1999 - CCPOA v State (representation rights CSP-Corcoran interrogations)

CALIFORNIA CORRECTIONAL PEACE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION
and
State of California: CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
Re: a dispute over representation rights CSP-Corcoran interrogations

Official document in .pdf (Adobe Acrobat) format

AWARD:
The State Employer under the Dills Act violated MOU sections 2.02, 2.08, 5.03 and 9.09. It did not violate MOU sections 2.04, 9.11, 27.01 or the Weingarten Agreement. Accordingly, CDC will be ordered to cease and desist from depriving employees of requested MOU representational rights at interviews whenever adverse action might result to the employment relationship.

February 1999 - CCPOA and State (Salary Savings Diversion Plan)

CALIFORNIA CORRECTIONAL PEACE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION
and
State of California: CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
Re: Arbitral Jurisdiction, Salary Savings Diversion Plan

Official document in .pdf (Adobe Acrobat) format

AWARD:
Based upon a careful consideration of all of the evidence and argument, it is the decision of the Arbitrator that:

1. The Arbitrator does not have jurisdiction to decide post arbitration hearing grievances dealing with alleged violations of the Diversion Plan.

2. Tbe Arbitrator's jurisdiction is limited - to those cases listed in Union Exhibit 1.

3. The State violated the Diversion Plan as regards the Lee Ackerman grievances discussed in the Opinion. The State has not violated the Diversion Plan as alleged in the DCP grievance (ARB No. 31,319).

4. The alleged MTA diversions are not within the Arbitrator's jurisdiction.

December 1998 - CCPOA v State (PIE Housing Stipends - San Quentin)

CALIFORNIA CORRECTIONAL PEACE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION
and
State of California: CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
Re: PIE Housing Stipends - San Quentin

Official document in .pdf (Adobe Acrobat) format

AWARD:
The State has not violated section 16.02 of the MOU by failing to pay the full housing stipend to PIEs assigned to San Quentin State Prison who worked fewer than 160 hours in a month. The grievance is denied.

April 1997 - CCPOA v State (parole agent workload)
CALIFORNIA CORRECTIONAL PEACE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION
and
State of California: CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
Re: parole agent workload

Official document in .pdf (Adobe Acrobat) format

AWARD:
A. On or before May 15,1997, Parole Agents who are eligible under the formula and who wish to make claims must file them with their immediate supervisor with a copy to an Agent of the Parole Division and the Union. The claim must be a declaration under penalty of perjury stating on a month-by-month basis that the employees had a specified number of points in excess of 168. Simultaneously the employee can request the State to produce records going back to January 1994. If these requests are not honored by the State within ten days after delivery, the employee can submit declarations upon information or belief that he or she was over 168 points in particular months.

On or before June 15 the State must respond, admitting or denying the claims. If the latter, the State must include in its answer the appropriate records which support its denial.

The rules prescribed above under the formula with respect to presumptions and burden of proof shall be followed.

B. With respect to employees who do not qualify under the formula, the procedures followed shall be similar to those set forth above. However, the claimant must establish that he or she was authorized to work overtime, either directly or by informed supervisory acquiescence, and that the work was in fact done.

C. The Arbitrator will retain jurisdiction to deal with any questions that may arise concerning the interpretation and application of this Opinion and Award to particular cases or groups of cases.

Most of these claims should be settled without arbitral intervention. However, if one of the parties invokes the jurisdiction of the Arbitrator, he shall resolve the dispute.

December 1996 - CCPOA v State (union bulletin boards, Robert Ferroggiaro)

CALIFORNIA CORRECTIONAL PEACE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION
and
State of California: CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
Re: union bulletin boards, Robert Ferroggiaro

Official document in .pdf (Adobe Acrobat) format

AWARD:
The Department violated Sec. 2.06 of the Unit 6 collective bargaining agreement when it ordered the Grievant as CCPOA chapter president to remove a flyer from the union bulletin board. The subsequent discipline of the Grievant for refusing to comply with the order constituted reprisal for protected activrty in violation of Sec. 5.03 and 6.06, and constituted a change in past practice in violation of 19.01 of the agreement.

The Department is ordered to rescind the adverse action and remove the letter of reprimand from the Grievant's personnel file and expunge any references thereto.

The Department is ordered to cease and desist from enforcing the terms of Sec. 2.06 by ordering a union representative or official to remove material from the union bulletin board, which the Department has determined does not meet the criteria stated in Sec. 2.06 governing the posting of material, instead of removing such materials itself.

Within 35 days of receipt of this Award, the Department is to post a copy of this Award at all work locat~onsa t the Department of Corrections where notices to employees customarily are posted and such posting shall be maintained for a period of 30 days.

By stipulation of the parties the undersigned Arbitrator retains jurisdiction over this Award to resolve any disputes that may arise over its implementation, but not to reconsider the merits of this decision. Retained jurisdiction will run for a period of 120 days from the date of this Award, which may be extended at the request of either party based on showing of cause for such an extension.

October 1996 - CCPOA v State (right to union representation)

CALIFORNIA CORRECTIONAL PEACE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION
and
State of California: CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
Re: Involving the grievance concerning a right to Union representation filed by Isaac Williams, Grievant.

Official document in .pdf (Adobe Acrobat) format *

AWARD:
1. The State violated Sections 5.03 and 6.06 of the Unit 6 Memorandum of Understand and the Settlement Agreement. The Department (SQSP) shall immediately remove and destroy any written record of Grievant's June 9, 1995 counseling.

2. Within forty-five (45) calendar days of the date of this Award, the Department (SQSP) shall (1) remind all supervisors of the Wein- Settlement Agreement and (2) remind all supervisors that, when an employee(s) is called into a meeting which is not expected to result in formal adverse action (discipline), the employee should be so notified.

3. The Arbitrator retains jurisdiction over the matter for the sole and limited purpose of resolving disputes, if any, over remedy.

* Editor's Note: This arbitration case contains additional court documents dated December 20, 1996 which were heard in Superior Court within the County of Sacramento.

July 1996 - CCPOA v State (shift swaps)

CALIFORNIA CORRECTIONAL PEACE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION
and
State of California: CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
Re: shift swaps

Official document in .pdf (Adobe Acrobat) format

AWARD:
Based upon a careful consideration of all of the evidence and argument, it is the decision of the Arbitrator that:

1. The Department initiated changes with respect to shift swaps violated Section 11.05 of the 1992-1995 MOU.

2. As the appropriate remedy, the Department is ordered to reinstate the institution-wide shift swap practice.

May 1996 - CCPOA v State (salary savings diversion plan)

CALIFORNIA CORRECTIONAL PEACE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION
and
State of California: CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
Re: salary savings diversion plan

Official document in .pdf (Adobe Acrobat) format

AWARD:
Based upon a careful consideration of all of the evidence and argument, it is the decision of the Arbitrator that:

1. The Employer violated Section 19.01 and an agreement dealing with the Diversion Plan entered into in November 1992.

2. As the appropriate remedy, the Employer is ordered to compensate employees for proven violations in accordance with the provisions of Section 13.05(g) of the Collective Bargaining Agreement. The specific amount to which individual employees may be entitled is remanded to the parties for determination. The Arbitrator reserves jurisdiction to make that determination in any case where the parties are unable to reach agreement.

April 1996 - CCPOA v State (smoking policy)

CALIFORNIA CORRECTIONAL PEACE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION, Complainant
and
State of California: CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondant
Re: smoking policy

Official document in .pdf (Adobe Acrobat) format

AWARD:
1. The State violated the MOU by the manner in which it implemented its smoking policy for prisons.

2. As a remedy, the State shall:

a. Take the necessary and appropriate action to ensure that inmates are allowed to smoke only in recreational areas pursuant to the state-wide smoking policy;
b. Cease and desist fiom prohibiting correctional officers fiom smoking outside on prison property, except for within five feet of main exits or entrances to buildings, and except for legitimate safety and security reasons, ie., smoking next to a propane tank or flammable liquids, until it has met and conferred with the Union in accord with Section 19.01 of the Memorandum of Agreement regarding such limitations or restrictions.

3. The Arbitrator retains jurisdiction with respect to any disputes which may arise concerning implementation of the above remedies.

March 1996 - CCPOA v State (Enhanced Tracking System grievance Section 19.01)

CALIFORNIA CORRECTIONAL PEACE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION, Union
and
State of California: CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Employer
Re: Enhanced Tracking System grievance Section 19.01.

Official document in .pdf (Adobe Acrobat) format

AWARD:
The state Employer did not violate either section 12.01 or 19.01 when it implemented the Enhanced Tracking System pilot program, or the System itself, without notice to the CCPOA and bargaining with it. The grievance is denied.

March 1996 - CCPOA v State (Representation Rights of Edie Tiller and Daniel Farr)

CALIFORNIA CORRECTIONAL PEACE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION, Union
and
State of California: CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Employer
Re: Representation Rights of Correctional Officers Edie Tiller and Daniel Farr.

Official document in .pdf (Adobe Acrobat) format *

AWARD:
Based upon a careful consideration of a11 of the evidence and argument, it is the decision of the Arbitrator that:

1. A witness is entitled to representation under the provisions of 9.10a when the witness becomes an employee.under an investigation which could or is likely to result in formal-adverse action.

2. As the remedy, the California Training Facility and its agents are ordered to cease and desist from denying Section 9.10a representation rights to employee witnesses when interrogation (as defined in Section 9.10a) of them could or is likely to result in formal adverse action.

* Editor's Note: This arbitration case contains additional court documents dated May 17, 1996 which were heard in Superior Court within the County of Sacramento.

February 1996 - CCPOA and State (Involving Section 9.10(d) Personnel)

CALIFORNIA CORRECTIONAL PEACE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION, Union
and
State of California: CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Employer
Re: Involving Section 9.10(d) Personnel investigations; consolidated six (6) month investigation grievances.

Official document in .pdf (Adobe Acrobat) format

INTERIM AWARD:
1. As more fully set out in the above Opinion, the dispute is remanded to the parties to use their best efforts to resolve each of the grievances at issue using the "normally" definition and criteria. If the parties are unable to resolve any or all of the grievances at issue, either party may invoke the Arbitrator's retained jurisdiction to decide them.

2. The Arbitrator retains jurisdiction over the case to resolve such disputes, if any.

January 1996 - CCPOA v State (19.01 - Andrew Banks)

CALIFORNIA CORRECTIONAL PEACE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION, Union
and
State of California: CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Employer
Re: 19.01 - Andrew Banks

Official document in .pdf (Adobe Acrobat) format

STIPULATED AWARD:
Based upon the stipulation of the parties, the Arbitrator hereby issues the following decision and order:

1. On or before January 10, 1996, the parties shall commence meeting and conferring in good faith within the meaning of Section 19.01 of the Memorandum of Understanding on the subject of the existence of the following five (5) positions in effect as of March 1, 1994;

(a) second watch mail room officer (post 2540);
(b) second watch C recreational officer (post 2381);
(c) second watch D recreational officer (post 2481);
(d) third watch C recreational officer (post 3381); and
(e) third watch D recreational officer (post 3481).

The negotiations concerning the above referenced matters shall include discussions of the positions into which those five positions were converted some time in March or April 1994.

The Department shall make available to the Union, including copies of documents, all information reasonably necessary for the Union to carry on the above-mentioned negotiations intelligently; said information may include but is not limited to matrices, post assignments, schedules and master rosters.

3. If the parties fail to reach agreement within thirty (30) days of the commencement of negotiations concerning the changes made in late March or early April 1994 by which the five above-mentioned positions were "redirected," then those redirections shall be rolled back and the status quo ante will be restored.

4. The Arbitrator retains jurisdiction to decide any disputed matters over the implementation and interpretation of this Award.

January 1996 - CCPOA and State (class action)

CALIFORNIA CORRECTIONAL PEACE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION, Union
and
State of California: CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Employer
Re: class action

Official document in .pdf (Adobe Acrobat) format

DECISION:
Based on this finding I believe the parties were obligated to enter into negotiations and to attempt to reach an agreement. Since no such written agreement was reached, the State is obligated to meet and confer with the Union as to the appropriate hanclling of the number of Vacation Relief Officers.

I will retain jurisdiction in this dispute to determine whether the parties have appropriately and in good faith met and conferred.

RETURN to the Arbitrations Archive HOME PAGE