Public Employment Relations Board
February 4, 2010
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.
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...
