CCPOA’s Reply to Opposition to Request for Injunction Relief

CCPOA replies to the Opposition to Request for Injuctive Relief. CCPOA's demand for a resumption of bargaining is an issue of first impression under the Dills Act; however, "construing and applying the duty to bargain... [is a] task lying at the heart of the Board's function."

Request for Injunctive Relief

On March 11, 2008, CCPOA filed this 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.

CCPOA’s “Sunshine Response” in re: to DPA’s 5/21 Letter

RE: Negotiations pursuant to the Ralph C. Dills Act between the CCPOA and the State of California (Sunshine Package)

DPA Responds to CCPOA’s 5/19/08 Letter

A letter to Chuck Alexander in response to the CCPOA regarding Request No. 1...

CCPOA Sends a Letter to Dave Gilb/DPA re: the State’s Agreement to Return to the Bargaining Table

Based on the letter from Ms Rodriquez of May 7, 2008 and DPA's commitments as represented by Mr. Smith at the recent PERB settlement conference, CCPOA understands the following...

PERB Complaint

It having been charged by Charging Party that Respondent engaged in unfair practices in violation of California Government Code section 3519, the General Counsel of the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB), pursuant to California Government Code sections 3513(h), 3514.5 and 3531.3(i) and California Code of Regulations, title 8, section 32640, issues this COMPLAINT on behalf of PERB and alleges...

Petition for Writ of Mandate filed by CCPOA

Petitioner CCPOA is, and was at all relevant times, a non-profit corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of California, with its principle place of business in the County of Yolo. CCPOA is the exclusive bargaining representative for employees in State Bargaining Unit 6 - primarily peace officers employed by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation pursuant to the Ralph C. Dills Act ("the Dills Act," Government Code 3512 et seq.).

PERB Amended Complaint (LBFO)

It having been charged by Charging Party that Respondent engaged in unfair practices in violation of California Government Cod section 3519, the General Counsel of the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB), pursuant to California Government Code sections 3153(h), 3514.5(i) and California Code of Regulations, title 8, section 31640, issues this COMPLAINT on behalf of the PERB alleges...

Declarations for Case No. I.R. 542 (PERB UPC No. SA-CE-1665-S)

Case No. I .R.542

(PERB UPC No. SA-CE-1665-S)  

Legal declarations from Gregg Adam [support], Pamela Schneider [opposition] and Kristine Rodrigues [opposition].

Opposition to Request for Injunctive Relief

Motion for Stay of Hearing

On March 6th 2008 the State sought to delay the PERB hearing on the LBFO set for April 16 and 17 in this MOTION FOR STAY OF HEARING.

The following excerpts  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.

Gilb’s February 15 letter

Dear Mr. Jimenez:

I am in receipt of your letter dated February 7, 2008, in which you continue to mischaracterize and distort the status of Labor Management Relations with Bargaining Unit 6. I will address each of your false assertions below.

First, however, I must address the last paragraph of your letter, which threatens unlawful conduct by your organization and your members. As the CCPOA President, you state, "I will immediately consult the CCPOA Executive Council to call for a vote on a job action. which may include a strike." (Emphasis original). Your threat demands a response because, as you concede, engaging in such a job action "places California in a perilous position." As sworn peace officers it is incumbent upon correctional officers not to use public safety...

MOU Letter “Request for Clarification Regarding Bargain in Good Faith”

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.

CCPOA Demands a Return to the Bargaining Table

Dear Mr. Gilb

On December 7, 2007, the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) issues an unfair practice complaint against the State alleging that the State cannot lawfully implement all three years of its last best and final offer (LBFO) which was imposed on Bargaining Unit 6 members effective September 18, 2007.

DPA Letter to EEs - Dated 12.14.07

SUBJECT: Status of Implemented Terms

In correspondence to you dated September 18, 2007, we informed you of our intention to implement certain terms and conditions of employment following the rejection of our final offer by CCPOA. In that correspondence we, informed you of our intention to implement all three years of the economics contained in that offer. 

CCPOA Memo re: DPA Letter - Dated 12.14.07

State Board, 

Yesterday, December 13,2007, we sent you a copy of the Department of Personnel Administration's (DPA) initial response letter to the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB). In this letter, DPA has withdrawn the second and third year "economic proposals" of its (State's) implemented package. The significance ofthis is quite obvious in that, as we predicted long ago, this Administration never intended to honor any multiyear year package including any pay increase to Unit 6. Also, with the current budget problems created by this Administration, it remains to be seen whether the pay promised to Unit 6 for this year will happen.

In reading the letter further, you will note that the State "agrees" with CCPOA's complaint regarding the "omission" of the vice presidents' leave (VPL) in the last best and final. As a result, this section ofthe LBF  will presumably be honored by the State. That remains to be seen.  

DPA Letter - Dated 12.13.07

Re: California Correctional Peace Officers Association v. State of California, et al.

UPC No. SA-CE-1621-S

Request for Dismissal

Dear Mr. Smith:

The California Correctional Peace Officers' Association (CCPOA), in its Second Amended Unfair Practice Charge, alleged that the State engaged in a number of unfair practices. On December 7,2007, the Office of the General Counsel of the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) agreed with CCPOA on two matters and issued a complaint against the State of California (State). (See, separate PERB letters, dated December 7,2007, Notice of  Complaint and Partial Dismissal.)  

DPA Letter - Dated 12.13.07

Re: California Correctional Peace Officers Association v. State of California, et al.

UPC No. SA-CE-1621-S

Request for Dismissal

Dear Mr. Smith:

The California Correctional Peace Officers' Association (CCPOA), in its Second Amended Unfair Practice Charge, alleged that the State engaged in a number of unfair practices. On December 7,2007, the Office of the General Counsel of the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) agreed with CCPOA on two matters and issued a complaint against the State of California (State). (See, separate PERB letters, dated December 7,2007, Notice of  Complaint and Partial Dismissal.)  

CCPOA vs. PERB - Official Complaint

It having been charged by Charging Party that Respondent engaged in unfair practices in violation of California Government Code section 3519, the General Counsel of the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB), pursuant to California Government Code sections 3513(h), 3514.5 and 3541.3(i) and California Code of Regulations, title 8, section 32640, issues this COMPLAINT on behalf of PERB and alleges:  

PERB Partial Dismissal - Dated 12.07.07

Re: California Correctional Peace Officers Association v. State of California (Department of Personnel Administration)

Unfair Practice Charge No. SA-CE-1621-S (Second Amended Charge)

PARTIAL DISMISSAL

Dear Mr. Adam:

The above-referenced unfair practice charge was filed on September 25,2007, and amended on October 2,2007. The California Correctional Peace Officers Association (CCPOA) alleges that the State of California (Department of Personnel Administration) (State or DPA) violated  the Ralph C. Dills Act (Dills Act)...