Gilb
February 25, 2008
President’s Message: 2-25-08 Update
Last week, CCPOA received a letter from DPA (Dave Gilb) dated February 15, 2008, in which he continues to deny any culpability for the status of labor relations between CCPOA and CDCR.
He tries to be clever in asserting "facts" that only show that he either:(I) has no knowledge whatsoever of his department's failed attempts to negotiate with CCPOA; or more likely that (2) he simply has no concept of words like truth, honesty, or good faith negotiations. He does make it abundantly clear however, that he doesn't believe he will ever be called to answer for his dealings with CCPOA. I won't use this forum, or my time to address all the false statements, but will respond to some of the more critical issues raised in his letter.
Make no mistake, it is Mr. Gilb and his Department that have placed the people of California in harm's way, if that is where we all collectively stand at this moment. His continuing efforts to evade any public review of the facts surrounding the negotiations between the State and CCPOA force the elevation of consequences. It is painfully obvious that they have no understanding of the resolve of this union, its leadership, or the members that we represent. Our position could not be any clearer.
When each and every CCPOA member puts on a badge, we swear an oath to the people of California to voluntarily give our lives to protect the life of a citizen, a coworker, and every inmate, no matter what crime he or she committed.
What would give them the impression that we would allow them to steal the past twenty years of effort by this member run union, without engaging them with every ounce of strength we can muster and every penny we can beg or borrow? How do they presume that we fear their threats more than serious injury or death?
Their threats of retaliatory or punitive actions will have no effect on our future decisions. Managers like that already make such threats every day to Unit 6 members working on the line. We are used to this type of behavior. A threat to hold CCPOA responsible for any job action we undertake means nothing, insofar as they are already seeking an author for legislation to destroy CCPOA and our members' rights under the Dills Act. The inference that CDCR or DPA will terminate our employment, or have us imprisoned, only strengthens our resolve to move forward with a vote.
The claim that a law or statute exists that specifically prohibits CCPOA and its members from engaging in a labor action that may include a strike is just plain false. There is case law that may favor that position, but the statement "we both know that a strike is unlawful" is further evidence of their chronic inability to tell the truth.
As we have previously stated, it's evident that the State knows the five members of the Public Employees Relations Board (PERB) are all Governor Schwarzenegger appointees. Such people are not likely to fairly adjudicate CCPOA's complaints. The deck has been stacked against us in the very forum where we would normally take labor management disputes. At a minimum, this forum (PERB) will take years to hear our issues if their current "speed" is any indication.
However, the probability of our success is not the prevailing factor in determining whether or not to take on this fight at PERB or in any other forum. Mr. Gilb and his sycophants' tactics require us to respond with unconventional methods when fundamental rights are under attack. Under no circumstance will CCPOA stand idly by and allow them to take away our right to collectively bargain. The legislation devised to implement their self-proclaimed "last, best and final offer" does precisely that and you, as members need to know that. The legislation strips the protections of the Dills Act from the members of Unit 6 and this Administration would have it done quietly and without the knowledge of our members and the people of California. We cannot permit that to occur.
CCPOA does not seek a job action of any kind. A job action appears to be the one ofthe few options still available, as the DP A and CDCR have systematically attempted to eliminate all other forums and methods available to us. We cannot let them take the rights of our members without fighting them every way we can.
Their actions allow no forum, and therefore no other options!
In the attached letter responding to Gilb's February 15 letter, we did challenge Mr. Gilb to what amounts to a "lie detector" test. We challenged him to agree to voluntarily appear before a committee of the whole of the Legislature to answer questions while under oath about the acts, by him, or his underlings on behalf of his department, while engaged in negotiations with CCPOA. We committed to make ourselves part of that same "hearing" in order for the public and the Legislature to hear the truth. CCPOA has no fear of the truth being revealed. [CCPOA response letter to DPA]
Unfortunately, Mr. Gilb and I both know that if such a hearing occurs, this Administrations behavior will not withstand the scrutiny. DP A and this Administration have never engaged in good faith negotiations with CCPOA. They never intended to get a MOU with CCPOA, and from the start they intended to destroy the rights of Unit 6 members. The truth will reveal this simple fact, which is the reason they have so diligently avoided bringing their tactics into the light of a public forum. It is time to bring all the facts into the open.
In my February 7 letter, I stated that their immediate return to good faith negotiation provided one path to avoid drastic action by CCPOA. They of course refused to take this path. In an effort to do everything possible to avoid job action, and because they will not negotiate fairly with CCPOA, what we are seeking, at this point, is a chance to show their conduct to the public in the fair and open forum described above. Rest assured Mr. Gilb, that we shall not stop until you are required to defend the deplorable tactics you have utilized during negotiations with CCPOA, while under oath, in a forum that is immune to the influence of you or this Administration.
Mike Jimenez, President
Documents:
Gilb's February 15 letter
CCPOA response letter to DPA - February 22
January 1, 2008
President’s Message: “It’s a LIE!”
Dear Member:
It is with great sadness that we must inform you of the latest Administration LIE regarding our expired contract. If you haven't already seen the December 14, 2007, memo from the Department of Personnel Administration addressed to all Unit 6 employees, you soon will as the Department was ordered to disseminate it immediately. This memo, signed by D. Gilb and J. Tilton, would result in dishonesty charges and an allegation of "code of silence" if it were a report written by anyone of us.
IT's A LIE
If you read the two bullet points that are made by Secretary Tilton and Director Gilb, they would have you believe that the state has legal problems with " three years of it economic offer." Therein lays the LIE.
The Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) issued a complaint dated December 7, 2007, that is attached to this letter. In reading the complaint, at numeral 5 you will note the specific charge which Tilton and Gilb are lying about. It reads: by implementing terms and conditions for a three year duration, Respondent acted contrary to the provisions of Government Code sections 3517 and 3517.8, and thus violated Government Code sections 3519(c). No mention was made whatsoever about this charge being limited to "economic " issues or "offers" as Tilton and Gilb write. In fact, "terms and conditions" encompasses everything associated with a contract, not just the economic issues. This charge means that the State violated the law by imposing any and all of its last offer for more than the time allowed.
Included below are the specific code sections referenced in the PERB charge:
3517. The Governor, or his representative as may be properly designated by law, shall meet and confer in good faith regarding wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment with representatives of recognized employee organizations, and shall consider fully such presentations as are made by the employee organization on behalf of its members prior to arriving at a determination of policy or course of action.
"Meet and confer in good faith" means that the Governor or such representatives as the Governor may designate, and representatives of recognized employee organizations, shall have the mutual obligation personally to meet and confer promptly upon request by either party and continue for a reasonable period of time in order to exchange freely information, opinions, and proposals, and to endeavor to reach agreement on matters within the scope of representation prior to the adoption by the state of its final budget for the ensuing year. The process should include adequate time for the resolution of impasses.
3517.8. (a) If a memorandum of understanding has expired, and the Governor and the recognized employee organization have not agreed to a new memorandum of understanding and have not reached an impasse in negotiations, subject to subdivision (b), the parties to the agreement shall continue to give effect to the provisions of the expired memorandum of understanding, including, but not limited to, all provisions that supersede existing law, any arbitration provisions, any no strike provisions, any agreements regarding matters covered in the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (Chapter 8 (commencing with Section 201) of Title 29 of the United States Code), and any provisions covering fair share fee deduction consistent with Section 3515.7.
(b) If the Governor and the recognized employee organization reach an impasse in negotiations for a new memorandum of understanding, the state employer may implement any or all of its last, best, and final offer. Any proposal in the state employer's last, best, and final offer that, if implemented, would conflict with existing statutes or require the expenditure of funds shall be presented to the Legislature for approval and, if approved, shall be controlling without further legislative action, notwithstanding Sections 3517.5, 3517.6, and 3517.7.. Implementation of the last, best, and final offer does not relieve the parties of the obligation to bargain in good faith and reach an agreement on a memorandum of understanding if any circumstances change, and does not waive any rights that the recognized employee organization has under this chapter.
3519.5. It shall be unlawful for an employee organization to:
(a) Cause or attempt to cause the state to violate Section 3519.
(b) Impose or threaten to impose reprisals on employees, to discriminate or threaten to discriminate against employees, or otherwise to interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees because of their exercise of rights guaranteed by this chapter.
(c) Refuse or fail to meet and confer in good faith with a state agency employer of any of the employees of which it is the recognized employee organization.
(d) Refuse to participate in good faith in the mediation procedure set forth in Section 3518.
As you can read in the code sections, Gilb and Tilton left out the portion regarding the PERB complaint as related to "terms and conditions" and made a point of rescinding the "economic" portion of the offer. This is nothing new from this Administration, remember the last contract and the concessions we made? This alone should convince you that there was never any intention on this Administration's part to reach a fair contract with us. We were never offered anything less than a three year all or nothing deal specifically in writing to us from DPA "a rejection of any part of a package proposal constitutes a rejection of the entire package proposal" (attached memo from DPA dated September 12, 2007), and now they claim that the economic portion has to be withdrawn due to a complaint initiated by CCPOA.
In closing their memo of lies, Tilton and Gilb write that the "complaint does not affect any of the other changes to policies or procedures cited in our September 18, 2007, correspondence. Therefore, the changes to various provisions, which include, but are not limited to, the grievance procedure, employee requested transfers, sick leave, and post and bid procedures will continue consistent with the State's implementation."
In other words, they are just going to take away the promised monies and go forward on taking away non economic items from the contract. They fail to tell you that they are taking away post and bid from the Youth Authority, or that the sick leave they are proposing is a standard that is less than current State law (which is why they need Legislative approval). They fail to tell you that they are, at least under the language given to us, able to transfer you anywhere and anytime they deem it necessary, or tell you that they can deny you State representation if you are sued by an inmate for doing your job. They leave out the change to the employee grievance process and don't mention the entire deletion of the section dealing with parole agent workload, and a host of other issues too numerous to point out here. However, they are trying real hard to get you to believe that if we don't get the promised monies from this year, it won't be their fault; after all they still claim to "hope" to reach a new agreement with CCPOA.
You can read the entire PERB complaint, (attached) and judge for yourself. We will file an official rebuttal with PERB and request that this charge be upheld and continue forward, as the State has NOT resolved this case by retaliating against us in rescinding only the monetary portion of the last best and final offer. It's quite ironic that the LAST, best and FINAL offer has changed multiple times since being issued, (DPA letter of September 12, 2007, is just one example) and that is exactly what happened at the negotiations table, which made it impossible to reach agreement.
- Mike Jimenez
Download the .pdf versions of these supporting documents:December 14, 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.
December 14, 2007
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.
December 13, 2007
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.)
December 13, 2007
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.)
December 7, 2007
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:
December 7, 2007
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)...
December 7, 2007
PERB Complaint - 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
Dear Parties:
The Office of the General Counsel has issued the enclosed COMPLAINT in the above-entitled matter. The Respondent is required to file an ANSWER within 20 calendar days from the date of service of the COMPLAINT, pursuant to PERB Regulation 32644. The required contents of the ANSWER are described in Regulation 32644(b). If you have not filed a Notice of Appearance form, one should be completed and returned with your ANSWER.
September 12, 2007
Package Offer - Dated 09.12.07
The State of California (State) hereby makes the following last, best and final offer to CCPOA to settle and conclude negotiations over a successor Memorandum of Understanding (MOU).
The State proposes a 3-year package offer which provides fiscal certainty for the State and guarantees specific and transparent pay increases to the members of Unit 6, the State's employees.
This offer is a formal offer and supersedes all others. This is a package offer which must be accepted or rejected in its entirety.
September 12, 2007
Letter from DPA - Dated 09.12.07
Dear Messrs. Adam, Jimenez, Weiss and Alexander:
On August 22, 2007, the State of California (State) provided a package offer to you. We received the California Peace Officer Associations (CCPOA's) rejection of this offer on September 5, 2007. Although we appreciate CCPOA's agreement to rollover language, CCPOA failed to address all of the sections identified on the summary sheet, and added other sections that were not a part of the respective sheet...
