RECENT UPDATES

CCPOA - LBFO Watch

Other LBFO Resources:

Unit 6 History
- A timeline including documents when applicable for CCPOA's most recent negotiations with the State of California regarding Bargaining Unit 6's labor contract, 2001 - date.
Labor Line
- Most recent "Labor Line" update from CCPOA.
CCPOA Fact Sheet
- "Double Dealing in Bad Faith": A Chronology of Failed Contract Negotiations Between CCPOA and the State of California

April 18, 2008

March 19, 2008

Unit 6 Members, The purpose of this memo is to update our members on the status of the litigation surrounding the State's Last, Best, and Final (LBFO) as well as some other key issues pending with the State. Please understand that the legal proceedings discussed here are subject to change, often quickly, and that legal actions can take a long time before anything happens. CCPOA will continue to provide periodic updates via the web page and e-mails as things develop.

On March 11, 2008, CCPOA filed a REQUEST FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF with the Public Employment Relations Board. The complaint is basically an allegation that the State is in violation of the law by their refusal to return to the negotiations table with CCPOA for the purpose of negotiating an MOU. This is predicated on a "change in circumstance" that CCPOA believes has taken place since the LBFO was implemented that mandates a return to bargaining. Our complaint points out several substantial changes since the imposition of the LBFO including:

DPA's failure to secure Legislative approval for the LBFO
The Governor's declaration of a fiscal state of emergency, and
The PERB's issuance of a complaint regarding the duration of the LBFO.

In response to this complaint, the State issued their OPPOSITION TO REQUEST FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF. Some of the positions that State takes in its response demonstrate the inevitability of us being at a LBFO. [See also: CCPOA's REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO REQUEST FOR INJUNCTION RELIEF.] The State claims, relative to returning to negotiations, that they declined CCPOA's demand because "CCPOA would not return to bargaining except on the untenable condition that the parties return to the terms of the expired MOU and, further, because nothing had happened to break the existing bargaining stalemate between the parties." While this statement is partly true, DPA has misrepresented the facts. On December 27, 2007, CCPOA sent a letter to DPA, demanding a return to the bargaining table and a return to the status quo ante (the MOU). This demand was premised on the "change in circumstance" created by PERB issuing the complaint relative to the time frame of the LBFO.

Early this year, CCPOA and DPA met at PERB to attend a mandatory settlement conference. Although the case didn't settle, the parties did discuss the December 27, 2007, letter. During that discussion, DPA asked for clarification which was provided by CCPOA legal counsel in a letter to them (DPA) dated January 16, 2008. That letter is important in that it reiterated our position and followed up on the question we specifically asked during that meeting at PERB. The final paragraph of the letter from January 16 states:

If the State is not prepared to return to the bargaining table based on the terms outlined above, please advise me under what terms, if any, the State is prepared to return to the bargaining table.

This question has yet to be answered by the State!

As demonstrated in the DPA's response to the two letters described above, the State is doing everything possible to avoid a return to the bargaining table. This position is wholly consistent with the "drive them to impasse" mentality that the State demonstrated during the course of our negotiations. Indeed, DPA totally ignores the question about returning to negotiations in the response we received dated January 30, 2008. And now, yet again, in their latest brief filed with PERB, DPA fails to reveal all the facts relative to this issue, and still has not explained what it would take to resume negotiations!. Based on that, it's quite obvious to us that the State wants to do nothing but delay, stall, impede, and avoid any negotiations with Unit 6 for a MOU. Consistent with that theme, the State also seeks to delay the PERB hearing on the LBFO set for April 16 and 17 in their MOTION FOR STAY OF HEARING. This hearing is set to hear the complaint that PERB issued relative to the time frame of the LBFO. We have not yet heard if the motion to delay this hearing has or will be granted.

Returning now to the latest brief from DPA, the following excerpts in italics clearly show the State's resistance to returning to the bargaining table by making the most unbelievable claims such as:

The State's fiscal crisis is not a change in circumstance that warrants renewed bargaining Because CCPOA has made no concessions and no movement to indicate that an agreement may be possible.

There exists no reasonable cause to conclude the statewide fiscal emergency constitutes a Change of circumstance breaking the current state of impasse and giving rise to a duty to bargain because there has been no concession nor any movement to indicate an agreement may be possible.

(Located at page 9, lines 1 thru 9)

Considering that the State's position in negotiations was that they wanted "some management controls back" and in return they were offering 15% in compensation over three years in order to pay for them, and that the State's ability to pay for them has been pulled back, it is incomprehensible that the State believes there has been no change in circumstances. CCPOA didn't believe them then, and we have even less reason to believe them now.

CCPOA makes blanket demands to negotiate without any indication of concession or movement toward an agreement. (Rodrigues Decl., fl 7.) In fact, CCPOA's return to bargaining is conditioned on operating under the terms of the non-existent MOU.

(Located at page 9, lines 22 thru 24)

Again, CCPOA must concede something, even though the State has not honored any of the economic issues that they imposed, much less offered.

In fact, because the parties are post impasse and the State has implemented the issue of salaries and economic proposals lie with the Legislature, not DPA.

(Located at page 11, lines 19 and 20)

As demonstrated by this Administration time and again... it's someone else's fault.

The Union has indicated it will only go to the bargaining table on a conditional basis. It improperly insists that the expired MOU be reinstated before it is willing to enter into any negotiations.

(Located at page 16, lines 17 thru 19)

Again, as explained above, this is only part of the facts regarding our position.

We have also attached several legal declarations that are part of the case(s) mentioned above. Those are; Gregg Adam [support], Pamela Schneider [opposition] and Kristine Rodrigues [opposition].

CCPOA is also actively seeking to redress the problems and injustices in CDCR's illegal apprenticeship program. Our latest move in this case was the recent filing of a COMPLAINT TO THE ADMINISTRATOR OF APPRENTICESHIP. This complaint is fairly self explanatory, and as this case develops we will update you.

CCPOA has also filed a number of PERB complaints alleging various "unfair practices" perpetrated by the State both during MOU negotiations and subsequent to implementation of the LBFO. CCPOA also has legal counsel from the law firm CB&M working on several other PERB complaints that will be posted on our web page in the near future. Those cases include the State's use of retired annuitants, failure to meet and confer on MRSA, failure to provide time off work for Unit 6 members' deposition time for the MRSA case and several others.

Please check this page again for future updates. We hope to see you at one of the upcoming CCPOA town hall meetings being scheduled in your area. Thank you.

Chuck Alexander
CCPOA