January 10, 2012
CCPOA Member Alert: Rob McGowan Update
This morning, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in Pasadena heard arguments in the case of Officer Rob McGowan. The 3 judge panel did not issue a ruling but they took the renewed motion to set Mr. McGowan free during the remainder of his appeal under submission. CCPOA and Mr. McGowan’s attorney are very encouraged by the tenor of the arguments that were made on his behalf...
December 20, 2011
2012 State Contribution Rates for Health Care
As noted earlier, the State Contribution rates are increasing. This is occurring because of our bargaining efforts and the members’ passage of the current MOU. Please distribute this information to your membership and remind them that this is one of the benefits they received due to their willingness to agree to the terms of the contract we now live under. In times of cuts and sacrifices, due to extreme financial woes statewide and nationwide, having an increase in our member’s net pay should be a welcome relief...
November 21, 2011
2011 Thanksgiving Letter from CCPOA
Dear CCPOA Member,
With the Thanksgiving holiday just a few days away, now is the time for us to remember all the things in our lives we should be thankful for - our families and loved ones, our friends and neighbors, and for the men and women who walk the toughest beat.
This has been a year of challenges and successes for CCPOA, and I am thankful for the hard work and dedication shown by every member of our union. As many of you know, CCPOA board members recently convened to discuss the issues before us and to begin writing the next chapter in our union's history...
September 22, 2011
Court may rule on CCPOA furlough case any time
Several State Worker blog users have asked about the status of two furlough cases in San Francisco's 1st District Court of Appeal. The short answer: The court could issue rulings in either case any day now.
CCPOA v. Brown (formerly CCPOA v. Schwarzenegger) is the government's appeal of a lower court's ruling that "self-directed" furloughs are an illegal pay cut, since employees lost their pay but were often forced to put off taking the commensurate time off.
Attorneys argued the case on Aug. 18. Legal types we've spoken with believe that this is the strongest of the union furlough cases, since it's about whether the policy violated labor law...
LINK - SacBee.com
September 21, 2011
Memo Re: California Automated Travel Expense Reimbursement System
Bargaining Unit 6 members have been utilizing CalATERS in some form or another for the past two years for the purpose of reimbursement for travel or overtime meal allowance claims. The major problem has been that the process for utilizing CalATERS has been very diverse from institution to institution, often times making reimbursement for legitimate compensation unduly difficult and time-consuming...
February 2, 2011
Overtime Class Action Lawsuit
Lawsuit Seeking Unpaid Overtime Wages for Uncompensated Pre-and Post-Work Activities “Certified” As a Class Action for Approximately 30,000 Unit 6 Employees and Supervisors
November 22, 2010
UPDATE: CCPOA files appellate brief in ‘self-directed’ furlough case
The California Correctional Peace Officers Association filed a 42-page brief on Friday, arguing that the California Supreme Court's furlough ruling last month didn't wipe out an Alameda judge's earlier ruling that "self-directed" furloughs are illegal.
"The governor says that the (Supreme Court's) ruling is a big blanket that you can throw over all furloughs," said Gregg Adam, one of the attorneys with San Francisco law firm Carroll, Burdick & McDonough, which represents CCPOA. "Obviously, we disagree."
Self-directed furloughs deduct an employee's pay at the furlough rate of roughly 15 percent per month, but the time off is deferred. The 32,000 or so correctional officers represented by CCPOA continue to work under self-directed furloughs. They're among the roughly 63,000 state workers represented by unions without current labor pacts...
LINK - SacBee.com
October 8, 2010
EC Budget Update
The California Legislature passed the State Budget early this morning. Members of the CCPOA Executive Council and the CCPOA Legislative Division held an all night vigil in the State Capitol during this process. We were successful in keeping the “pension reform” as written from achieving the required two-thirds votes for passage. However, in the early morning hours the Legislature gutted another bill, loaded the pension reform into that bill and passed it with a simple majority vote.
Considering the fiscal state of the state we made it quite clear, as we have all along, that we were more than willing to agree to pension reform and possible concessions in return for our work place rights (an MOU). The legislative leadership either would not or could not stand up to the Governor on behalf of the men and women in this profession...
October 6, 2010
Memo from Chuck Alexander to Legislators re: Pension Reform
The following is a copy of the letter sent from CCPOA Executive Vice President Chuck Alexander to the entire state Senate today concerning the tentative state budget proposals.
Please take a moment to read the letter. An identical letter was also sent to all members of the state Assembly.
Also, if you are interested, please contact the office of your state Assembly member and state senator to voice your opinion on this proposed budget plan.
You can find out who your legislators are by going to the CCPOA website and clicking on the link on the left-side of the page.
October 1, 2010
A Guide to Furloughs Litigation
By Gregg Adam and Jonathan Yank
Despite rumors of a pending state budget deal—which may or may not end the present round of furloughs—Unit 6 members remains subject to the onerous terms of the Governor’s furlough orders and CDCR/DPA efforts to implement them. Employee salaries are reduced by 15% and—to add insult to injury—many (if not most) of our members actually work on their “supposed” furlough days.
There are more than thirty cases file by labor unions representing state employees slowly working their way through the California courts. Two of those are being pursued by our office on behalf of CCPOA-represented employees. This short summary is intended to update members regarding the status of those cases and to speculate on when final decisions may be forthcoming. The good news is that relevant decisions should issue in fairly short order; the bad news is that those decisions may themselves trigger further litigation.
Before turning to the CCPOA-cases, we offer a brief summary of the September 8, 2010 oral argument in the California Supreme Court on other furlough-related cases. CCPOA was not directly involved in those consolidated cases, but a decision by the Supreme Court in those matters certainly has potential implications for CCPOA’s cases. The arguments there concerned whether the Governor generally has the authority to implement furloughs in response to a declared state of financial emergency (putting aside any illegalities in how they are implemented).
The Governor’s attorney argued that during any state of emergency (including a fiscal crisis), the Governor has sweeping, inherent executive powers, including the power to furlough state employees. The labor unions countered that the Governor had exceeded his powers because a number of statutes and provisions of the California Constitution clearly provide that only the Legislature, and not the Governor or others in the executive branch, can change state employees’ salaries.
Most commentators and practitioners (many noting that six of the seven justices were appointed by Republican Governors Deukmejian and Wilson) believe that the Supreme Court will rule for the Governor. Our hope is that, if that happens, it will be a narrow ruling, and not one that suggests that the Governor does indeed have unlimited power under the circumstances.
Now to CCPOA’s cases:
CCPOA v. Schwarzenegger I
CCPOA filed this case in March of 2009 in the Alameda County Superior Court. The furloughs had been implemented at the beginning of February, 2009, and by the beginning of March, the February paycheck had confirmed—what CCPOA suspected—that the paychecks received by our members made no distinction between those who had actually been able to take their furlough days off and those who had worked (i.e., our members’ paychecks were reduced whether or not they were able to take days off). Our lawsuit raised two sets of claims: (1) that the reduction of salaries effectuated by the furlough orders violated the separation of powers doctrine and clear language in the Government Code stating that only the Legislature has the power to change state employees’ salaries ; and (2) by paying no salary and only a “furlough credit” for certain work performed (i.e., furlough days when employees were required to work), the State was violating California’s wage-and-hour laws. These claims were filed for Unit 6 members and for supervisory employees represented by CCPOA.
Despite our best efforts to have the claims heard as soon as possible, Judge Frank Roesch, who was assigned the case, decided that he wanted to hear all furloughs cases on his calendar at once. (A number of other unions also filed in Alameda after CCPOA.) Accordingly, it was not until mid-November that the parties argued their claims to the judge in front of a packed courtroom.
On December 17, 2009, Judge Roesch issued an 11-page ruling in CCPOA’s favor on both sets of claims. He found that, based on undisputed evidence, the State had violated the separation of powers doctrine and California wage-and-hour laws. Consequently, he issued a Writ of Mandate (a type of court order) directing the State to immediately begin paying employees who worked on furlough days.
Now it begins to get complicated: On the day after Judge Roesch issued his Writ of Mandate, the State filed a Notice of Appeal to the First District Court of Appeal in San Francisco. CCPOA objected, pointing out that remedial claims for up to 30,000 employees still needed to litigated and, therefore, that the Notice of Appeal was premature and defective. The State Controller agreed with CCPOA and indicated that he would execute full paychecks. The State then asked the Court of Appeal to issue a stay of Judge Roesch’s Writ to prevent the order from taking effect, which it did. CCPOA then challenged the State’s Notice of Appeal as defective for the reasons stated above, but suggested that if the Court of Appeal believed the issues to be of sufficient importance (as we certainly agreed they were), then it should take the case “outside its normal rules” as an expedited appellate Writ of Mandate proceeding (yes, the terminology is often duplicative). We also asked the Court of Appeal to lift its stay, which we contended would simply cost the State additional money through monetary remedies and legal fees.
The Court of Appeal agreed with us that the notice of appeal was defective, and it also agreed with our suggestion that it should accept the case for an expedited Writ of Mandate proceeding. It would not, however, agree to lift the stay despite our request (and others we have made since).
Expeditious briefing took place, with the party submitting all of their briefs by mid-May (believe it or not, this was “expedited” for an appellate court). However, we still await a ruling from the Court of Appeal.
To be fair to the Court of Appeal, with a Supreme Court decision on this subject pending, it is likely that it has decided to await that decision to ensure there is no conflict with any decision it will issue in our case.
It is possible that once the Supreme Court rules, the parties may be asked in our case to analyze and submit further briefing as to whether the ruling affects our case. We tend to think that the Supreme Court’s decision will not affect our case because the issues are different—the Governor’s authority to order actual furloughs (meaning employees actually getting time off without pay) versus the State’s obligation to pay employees for all time for which they are actually required to work.
CCPOA v. Schwarzenegger II
We filed a second lawsuit in early August 2010 seeking to challenge the Governor’s emergency order to implement a second wave of furloughs (on account of the new state budget impasse). Again we filed in the Alameda County Superior Court.
Our lawsuit was one of a number of challenges by state employee unions to the Governor’s authority to order the second round of furloughs. Most of the challenges focused (again) on the lack of authority for the Governor to implement the furloughs.
Before our case was heard, several other unions successfully persuaded Alameda Superior Court Judge Stephen Brick to issue a temporary restraining order (“TRO”) prohibiting the Governor from implementing the second round of furloughs. The Governor made an emergency appeal to the Court of Appeal, but that was denied.
Our application for a TRO was heard shortly afterwards, and Judge Brick tentatively indicated he would also be inclined to issue the TRO in our case. Before he could, however, the California Supreme Court intervened and issued a stay, proclaiming that the cases were too similar to the matters then (and now) under consideration by the Court (i.e., the cases discussed above that were argued on September 8).
Accordingly, our second challenge to the furloughs remains stayed pending a ruling by the Supreme Court.
What comes next …
As stated, we expect a ruling by the Supreme Court in the near future on whether the Governor has the authority to unilaterally implement furloughs. Once that decision is issued, it should clarify whether we are likely to prevail on our challenge in CCPOA v. Schwarzenegger II.
In addition, once the Supreme Court weighs in, the Court of Appeal is likely to issue its decision in CCPOA v. Schwarzenegger I. If, as we hope, the Court of Appeal affirms Judge Roesch’s ruling, then the Writ of Mandate would be reinstated, and we would return to Judge Roesch’s courtroom to litigate the amount of back pay and other monetary remedies due to our members for the violations of California’s wage-and-hour laws.
September 22, 2010
CCPOA Member Alert: Gov Candidate Positions
Meg Whitman v. Jerry Brown on the Issues that affect California state workers and BU6 the most.
Meg Whitman:
• Collective Bargaining:
Whitman also said the extension of collective bargaining rights
to state workers in 1977 was "probably not a good thing."
Source: Sacramento Bee, 9/20/2010• On State Employees:
“Well, I know, from my experience, that almost any
organization, you can lay off 10 percent of the
bureaucracy, and actually -- maybe it's easier, actually,
with fewer people, and it will not be a hardship on the
state. And, so, that would say that you want to lay off
between 30,000 and 40,000 people.”
Source: CNN, 5/18/2009
July 27, 2010
CONTRACT NEGOTIATIONS BREAKDOWN BETWEEN CCPOA/ ADMINISTRATION
WEST SACRAMENTO - Renewed contract negotiations, which began July 13, 2010, between the California Correctional Peace Officers Association and Governor Schwarzenegger’s administration ended abruptly when the state virtually closed the door on more than $150 million in savings for taxpayers.
CCPOA negotiators were informed by DPA officials that their proposal was “dead on arrival” and the Governor has declined to entertain any further discussions with CCPOA.
Yesterday, the discussion began with what are considered to be the “common ground” issues between the two parties. Next, as a show of good faith and willingness to compromise, CCPOA placed its concessions on the table that included pension reform and ultimately more than $150 million dollars in concessions in the first year. Still, the state walked away from the deal.
“We don’t believe that they were ever interested in negotiating with us from the beginning and the rejection of this deal clearly indicates that.” said Mike Jimenez, State President of the California Correctional Peace Officers Association. “Our proposal included long-term meaningful reform solutions and would have benefited California taxpayers significantly. This is the second time under the Schwarzenegger administration that we offered savings in excess of $150 million only to be rejected.”
The Association says that all that its members asked for in return was non-monetary language offering job protections.
“This was an honest and sincere attempt to do our part in helping the state save money,” said Chuck Alexander, Executive Vice President of CCPOA. “We are dumbfounded as to how the administration could walk away from a deal that saves the state in excess of $150 million.” Alexander went on to say, “These are real dollars. How many school textbooks, teachers, or afterschool programs could this administration fund with those savings.”
CCPOA says that it remains ready to implement real reform with real savings for taxpayers.
For more information please contact JeVaughn Baker at (916) 372-6060 or jevaughn.baker@ccpoa.org.
July 16, 2010
RULING ON TRO - Endsley v. Chiang
July 16, 2010
Ruling on Intervention - Endsley v. Chiang
DEBBIE L. ENDSLEY, et al., v. JOHN CHIANG, et al., Case No. 2010-80000591:
The following shall constitute the Court's ruling on the ex parte applications for leave to intervene in this action filed by four state employee organizations, which was heard in Department 19 on Friday, July 16, 2010.
Plaintiffs Debbie L. Endsley, the Director of the California Department of Personnel Administration, and the Department, have filed a petition for writ of mandate or prohibition, and a complaint for declaratory relief, against defendants Office of the State Controller and the Controller, John Chiang...
July 14, 2010
CCPOA Case Update Memo to State Board
I have been asked to provide a brief status report regarding the major cases we have pending in various legal venues. This update covers only those issues being handled by CB&M. I will prepare an update for in-house cases and PERB's within the next few days.
Furloughs - As you are aware, we prevailed in Superior Court and are presently awaiting a decision from the Appellate Court. There is no time frame the Court is required to meet relative to issuing a decision...
July 13, 2010
Minimum Wage Case Update
CCPOA's Ex Parte Application for Leave to Intervene in Endsley v. Chiang, Sacramento County Superior Court, No. 34-2010-80000591
In plain English, here are the PDF’s of our request to the court to intervene in the case in which DPA is suing the Controller to enforce the latest pay letter:
- Ex Parte Application By California Correctional Peace Officers’ Association For Leave To Intervene Pursuant To Code Of Civil Procedure Section 387(B); Memorandum Of Points And Authorities In Support Of Ex Parte Application;
- Declaration Of Charles L. Alexander, Jr. In Support Of Ex Parte Application For Leave To Intervene Pursuant To CCP § 387;
- Declaration Of James P. Harrison In Support Of Ex Parte Application For Leave To Intervene Pursuant To Code Of Civil Procedure Section 387(B);
- Declaration Of Richard Warg In Support Of Ex Parte Application For Leave To Intervene Pursuant To Code Of Civil Procedure Section 387(B);
- Declaration Of Jonathan Yank In Support Of Ex Parte Application For Leave To Intervene Pursuant To CCP § 387
- [Proposed] Order Granting CCPOA’s Ex Parte Application For Leave To Intervene; and
- Proof of Service
July 13, 2010
FLSA Collective Action: Newton v. Schwarzenegger
The CCPOA Legal Department represents three Correctional Officers who brought a lawsuit in Federal District Court for the Northern District of California claiming that California’s furloughing of correctional employees, while still requiring them to report to work, violates federal labor law. The Federal Judge has now allowed these three Officers to be class representatives of all BU6 members who want to become members to the lawsuit. The suit is different than a normal class action lawsuit because Correctional Officers who want to take part in it must opt-in and become a “consenter” to the lawsuit by filling out an opt-in/consent form.
On July 8, 2010, a letter was sent to all CCPOA members noticing them of the suit and their right to join and opt-in to the collective action. Included with the letter were the following documents:
(1) Notice of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) lawsuit regarding furloughs filed against Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”), the Department of Mental Health (“DMH”), and the State Controller;
(2) Opt-In Form you must use to become a “Consenter” to the action if you choose to participate in this lawsuit;
(3) Representation Agreement signed by three Correctional Officers who brought a lawsuit;
(4) Consent to Representation Agreement you must use for CCPOA to act on your behalf in this matter, should you chose to do so.
In order to be represented by CCPOA in this matter, you must first fill out and return to CCPOA at 755 Riverpoint Drive, West Sacramento, CA 95605, the attached Opt-In Form and Consent to Representation Agreement no later than September 22, 2010.
The pleadings to the lawsuit are accessible BELOW. Should you have any questions regarding the lawsuit, please contact CCPOA by telephone at (916) 340-5033.
Newton v. Schwarzenegger: Case No. 3:09-cv-05887-VRW
United States District Court – Northern District California
(1) Complaint
(2) Answer by Defendant Administration
(3) Answer by Defendant Controller
(4) Plaintiffs’ Petition for Conditional Certification
(5) Opposition to Conditional Certification by Defendant Administration
(6) Plaintiffs’ Reply to Defendant’s Opposition to Conditional Certification
(7) Court Order granting Plaintiffs’ Petition for Conditional Certification
June 11, 2010
CCPOA Letter to Senator Steinberg
The following letter from CCPOA Executive Vice President Chuck Alexander to Senator Darrell Steinberg is in response to a letter written by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger to Senator Steinberg regarding negotiations with public unions [see the letter at CaliforniaNewsWire.com - opens in a new window] CCPOA's letter is below - available to read online or download in Adobe Acrobat .pdf format.
June 11, 2010
CCPOA Comment Re: CO Robert McGowan
May 25, 2010
CCPOA 2010 Primary Election Endorsement List
State Controller -John Chiang
Assembly (By District#)
|
1 Wes Chesbro 2 Jim Nielsen 3 Dan Logue 4 Ted Gaines 7 Michael Allen 8 Mariko Yamada 9 Roger Dickinson 10 Alyson Huber 11 Susan Bonilla 12 Fiona Ma 13 Tom Ammiano 14 Nancy Skinner 16 Sandre Swanson 17 Cathleen Galgiani 18 Mary Hayashi 19 Jerry Hill 20 Garrett Yee 21 Richard Gordon 22 Paul Fong 23 Nora Campos 24 Jim Beall 26 Bill Berryhill 27 Bill Monning 28 Luis Alejo 29 Linda Halderman 30 Fran Florez 31 Henry Perea 32 Shannon Grove 33 Khatchik "Katcho" Achadjian 34 Connie Conway 35 Das Williams 36 Steve Knight 37 Jeff Gorell 38 Cameron Smyth 39 Felipe Fuentes |
40 Bob Blumenfield 41 Julia Brownley 42 Mike Feuer 44 Anthony Portantino 45 Gil Cedillo 46 John Perez 47 Holly Mitchell 48 Mike Davis 49 Mike Eng 50 Ricardo Lara 51 Stephen Bradford 52 Isadore Hall 53 James Lau 54 Bonnie Lowenthal 55 Warren Furutani 56 Tony Mendoza 57 Roger Hernandez 58 Charles Calderon 59 Chris Lancaster 61 Norma Torres 62 Wilmer Amina-Carter 63 Don Kurth 64 Brian Nestande 65 Paul Cook 66 Kevin Jeffries 67 Jim Silva 69 Jose Solorio 71 Jeff Miller 74 Martin Garrick 75 Nathan Fletcher 76 Toni Atkins 77 Bill Wells 78 Marty Block 80 Manuel Perez |
SENATE (By District#)
|
2 Noreen Evans 8 Leland Yee 10 Ellen Corbett 14 Tom Berryhill 16 Michael Rubio 20 Alex Padilla 22 Kevin De Leon 24 Ed Hernandez |
26 Curren Price 28 Jenny Oropeza 30 Ron Calderon 32 Gloria Negrete-McLeod 34 Lou Correa 36 Joel Anderson 38 Mark Wyland 40 Juan Vargas |
May 19, 2010
Apprenticeship Program Decision
When an apprentice transfers from a DDJ classification to another classification like CO, the Department’s original “Internal Credit Matrix” ended up granting only a couple of months credit to an apprentice who had almost completed the program. This meant these employees were trapped in the apprentice pay range for almost 4 years and restricted them from bidding.
On March 18, 2010, CDCR’s Apprenticeship Committee addressed the impact of the closure/conversion of Stark on the DJJ Apprentices who transferred to adult institutions. The Apprenticeship Committee granted these apprentices hour-for-hour credits toward their apprenticeship in the adult classification (see the attached April 7, 2010 memo).
On April 29, 2010, CDCR’s Apprenticeship Committee addressed the impact of the closures of Paso and DeWitt on the DJJ Apprentices who transferred to adult institutions. They granted the same hour-for-hour remedy (see attached May 6, 2010 memo).
This decision ensures that all apprentices receive appropriate credit for their qualifying experience, is consistent with the recent decision to apply apprenticeship credit to the Herman G Stark closure, and shall be retroactively applied to the date of transfer. Each facility and program that received correctional peace officers upon closure of Dewitt nelson and El Paso de Robles shall ensure that apprentice agreements are filed accordingly and pay adjustments scheduled as appropriate. (italics added)
- May 6, 2010, Wilson memo (see attached)
It’s important that anyone who was an apprentice at the time they transferred to an adult institution from Paso, Dewitt, or Stark, needs to contact their IST office and make sure they get hour-for-hour credit for their DJJ apprenticeship and their pay gets adjusted and they are able to bid.
It’s the local institution’s job to ensure that these remedies are implemented. If there is a problem, try to resolve it with IST, Personal Assignment Office, Personal, etc. If they can’t or won’t fix it or explain it, get your Chapter involved quick.
- DJJ VP - Daryl Lee
April 8, 2010
CDCR: New MRSA Policy & Training Procedures
CDCR HQ has issued a memo (see attached) directing all institutions to develop local MRSA procedures. Therefore, if they have not already begun, local institutional management will shortly begin to develop the local MRSA IIPPs which will include site specific issues. The statewide MRSA settlement agreement allows for local discussion regarding the content of the local MRSA OPs.
We suggest you contact your Warden as soon as possible to set up meetings for discussion regarding MRSA issues. Some areas of consideration when reviewing the local MRSA policy may include...
April 2, 2010
Don’t Believe the Bull
CDCR says 12-hour shifts are a pay raise.
But that’s only because you’ll be working more hours.
Here’s how else 12-hour shifts hurt you:
April 2, 2010
Governor files opening brief in CCPOA furlough appeal
With all the recent furlough court action, we're just now getting to the latest development in the fourth of the four Alameda cases ruled on by Judge Frank Roesch and now with San Francisco's 1st District Court of Appeal, CCPOA v. Schwarzenegger.
When we last left this case, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's legal team had won a decision from the appellate court to temporarily block Roesch's order to end self-directed Corrections furloughs pending a resolution of the appeal or another order from the appellate court.
On Feb. 26, the appellate court denied CCPOA's motion to dismiss the governor's appeal, although it also said the union's arguments about the timeliness of the appeal had merit. The court said it would treat the appeal as a request for a writ of mandate and set a schedule for the two sides to submit documents to support their positions...
LINK - SacBee.com
March 23, 2010
CCPOA Town Hall Meetings
January 25, 2010
A Letter to Matt Cate
Dear Mr. Cate:
This letter is written on behalf of all the men and women that work for you in the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitations that are represented by Bargaining Unit 6.
In opening, we feel compelled to refresh your memory regarding the furloughing of Unit 6 members. On or about December 19, 2008, the Governor issued Executive Order S-16-08 directing State agencies to furlough employees for two days per month. On or about July 9, 2009 the Governor added a third furlough day via Executive Order S-13-09. These Executive Orders contained "limited" exemptions but also specifically exempted those who provide "service and functions of state government directly related to the preservation and protectionof human life and safety."
...continued in attached document
January 11, 2010
BUDGET RESPONSE
In a press release titled, "CCPOA Responds to the Governor's Proposed Budget," and dated January 8, 2010, CCPOA says: "Today the governor released his proposed state budget for fiscal year 2010-11, which fails to include any comprehensive and desperately needed prison reform ideas. Instead, what he has proposed is simply 'business as usual.' Among the many flaws in his new budget is his plan to place out-of-state, for-profit corporations in charge of California's prisons..."
July 27, 2009
Special to the Bee: A Letter from Chuck Alexander
While Sacramento police and firefighters are receiving accolades from local officials for making contract concessions during tough times, our governor has summarily rejected any and all attempts by California correctional peace officers to do the same.
With California now reduced to passing out IOUs to cover its growing debts and its credit rating in free fall, the governor's refusal to even consider, let alone enact, any of these cost-saving proposals is puzzling.
We recently offered to reduce future pension obligations, alter sick leave provisions and make other contractual changes that would save California taxpayers more than a billion dollars annually, all of which were flatly rejected by the Schwarzenegger administration.
Shortly before, we urged the governor to trim the prison bureaucracy, which has nearly doubled at a time when the state's prison population has increased 8 percent. Even the governor's former acting corrections director said the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation "is bloated and unwieldy, generating significant waste." The governor's response was to begin furloughing officers, essentially cutting the muscle instead of the fat.
It's not the first time this governor has turned a deaf ear to our recommendations for reducing the high cost of operating California prisons. Two years ago, we detailed ways the state could save hundreds of millions of dollars by trimming the prison bureaucracy and streamlining operations. Two months ago, we offered other suggestions for cutting prison costs, including limiting inmate health care costs to the same level as Medi-Cal patients, which would ensure adequate care for inmates while saving taxpayers over a billion dollars annually. In neither case would the governor nor his prison officials meet to discuss these ideas...
December 16, 2008
LBFO Update
Meal and Rest Breaks and Donning and Doffing
These cases are both in the discovery phase and we anticipate moving forward aggressively in the coming months. It is also anticipated that CCPOA will be seeking individual "litigants" sometime after the first of the year.
8 Hour Work Day
This case is proceeding through the Court and CCPOA has a legal "Brief" due to the Court on December 31, 2008. Reply briefs are due three weeks later and the first hearing date is set for January 30, 2009.
Apprenticeship
CCPOA is awaiting a decision from the Division of Industrial Relations (DIR) relative to the validity of the CDCR apprenticeship program. We had a "paper" hearing in which CDCR and CCPOA submitted legal arguments in writing to an Administrative Law Judge. It has been more than three months since that was completed and we still have no decision. On December 10, 2009 we sent a letter to the Director of the DIR requesting a decision be rendered (DIR Letter). We will proceed to Superior Court after the Holidays if we still have not received the decision.
PERB Cases
CCPOA currently has filed approximately 45 charges with PERB alleging various violations, on both statewide and local Chapter issues. To date PERB has issued complaints on 14 of the alleged violations.
-
On December 1, 2008 we sent a request to expedite the PERB hearing on a complaint issued 12 months ago that has yet to be heard. On December 8, 2008 the PERB responded to our request with a tersely worded denial of our request (December 1 motion to expedite). We are preparing to proceed to Superior Court and hope to file said Court papers by the end of this year. This is the issue of how long a last best and final can be imposed.
-
On October 2, 2008 PERB issued a Proposed Decision, in which CCPOA prevailed, relative to the CDCR's use of retired annuitants and their failure to recognize retired annuitants as bargaining unit members.
-
On November 5, 2008 the PERB issued a complaint because the CDCR "did not have a policy regarding the containment and control of Methicillin Resistant Staphylococcus Aureus (MRSA) within its facilities." This issue is pending settlement between CCPOA and the State. CALOSHA is also involved as we filed a complaint through them regarding this issue as well. We anticipate this issue being resolved in the next few months, however, there is still civil litigation pending.
- On November 4, 2008 PERB issued a complaint against CDCR for failing to meet and confer in good faith relative to an issue at SVSP regarding gym deactivation(s). This case is set for hearing on April 3 and 4, 2009.
We are currently in "Hearing" with PERB on a complaint issued relative to the State failing to provide CCPOA with a copy of all implemented terms in a timely fashion. This case has had three days of hearing thus far and there are two more days scheduled for February 18 and 19, 2009.
Another case being heard is a complaint that the State has/is failing to execute written agreements that are reached during negotiations. This hearing continues tomorrow, December 17, 2009.
We are awaiting a PERB decision from a case out of Centinela regarding counselor scheduling and the State violating the terms they imposed. Also from Centinela an issue of automated suicide checks that was not meet and conferred on is set for hearing on January 29, 2009.
On December 12, 2008 we sent a letter to all members of the California Legislature (December 12, 2008 letter) reiterating a previous offer to try and work cooperatively toward an MOU while saving the State some money as we did in 2004.
This is just a brief update on some of the issues that CCPOA has going through the "system." We will try to provide updates as things change.
Chuck Alexander
March 18, 2008
LBFO Watch Memo
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. 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.
Chuck Alexander
CCPOA
