MESSAGE FROM MIKE JIMINEZ

Monday, December 17, 2007

MESSAGE FROM MIKE JIMINEZ
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 resolve 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

CCPOA RESPONSE TO THE DPA’s REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL

Saturday, December 15, 2007

CCPOA RESPONSE TO THE DPA’s REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL
Yesterday, December 13,2007, we sent CCPOA’s State Board 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 of this 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 of the LBF will presumably be honored by the State. That remains to be seen. Of particular note is the closing paragraph where the State claims to have rendered our “entire complaint moot” by the actions described above. How insightful and benevolent of them. In actuality, our complaint covers issues which are not economic; as does the complaint issued by PERB. The best example of this being the post and bid that is being forced upon us at this very moment. This process, as being implemented, clearly violates section 3517.8-i.e. the State is imposing “terms and conditions of employment” of a noneconomic nature for a period exceeding the annual budget year. The statute that PERB has charged the State with violating is not limited to “economic” issues as the DPA is trying to claim. The PERB charge clearly states: 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 section 3519(c). No limitation to “economic” issues as the DPA letter claims, but ALL TERMS AND CONDITIONS, which would clearly include post and bid for one. In summary, Unit 6 has been lied to again by this Administration, and here it is trying to shift responsibility for that to CCPOA. We filed a complaint, a charge was issued, and now they retaliate by taking away the money, but continue to go forward with everything else. Further evidence as to why we were unable to reach an agreement. The offer changed every time we questioned it, and even after imposing it on us, it continues to change. Also recall that we were never offered anything but a multiyear package contract, something they knew we couldn’t agree to.Chuck

PERP RULES AGAINST STATE – PERB COMPLAINT FILED


PERP RULES AGAINST STATE – PERB COMPLAINT FILED
DPA Runs Afoul Of The Law – Again!December 12, 2007Yesterday we were informed that the PERB (Public Employee Relations Board) has issued a complaint against the Last, Best and Final.In the complaint, PERB States;· 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 section 3519©.What this means is that the State has violated Government Code by imposing a Last Best and Final for a period longer than the annual State budget. As a result of this complaint, there will be a settlement conference on January 7, 2008 with a subsequent hearing if settlement is not reached.At this point, it would appear as though all provisions of the Last Best and Final, including post and bid, are only good until June 30 of 2008.We will provide more information as it becomes available.Chuck AlexanderCCPOA Executive Vice President

DPA’s REPONSE TO PERB CHARGE

DPA’s REPONSE TO PERB CHARGE
Roger Smith Labor Relations Specialist Public Employment Relations Board 1 031 18th Street Sacramento, CA 95811-8383Re: California Correctional Peace Officers Association v. State of California, et al. UPC No. SA-CE-1621-SRequest for DismissalDear 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.) Specifically, CCPOA argued that the State’s implementation of portions of its last, best and final offer, which included economics for a three-year period (rather than a single year), violated the Ralph C. Dills Act. In paragraphs 4 through 7, the PERB General Counsel’s complaint concurred with CCPOA and found violations of Government Code sections 3517, 3517.8 and 3519(c). The PERB General Counsel’s complaint also indicated that such an implementation (of a three-year economic package) “interfered with the rights of bargaining unit employees· and denied CCPOA “its right to represent bargaining unit employees” in violation of Government Code sections 3519(a) and (b). In light of the PERB General Counsel’s complaint that issued as a result of CCPOA’s opposition to an implementation that included three years of economics and in an effort to remedy the violations alleged In the complaint, the State hereby withdraws the second- and third-year economic proposals of its implementation package. The State will continue to implement the first year of the economic proposal, subject to Legislative approval. – . The State’s withdrawal of the latter two years of economics addresses CCPOA’s and the PERB General Counsel’s concerns regarding the ability of CCPOA to represent bargaining unit employees In future negotiations. As a result of this withdrawal, the State requests immediate dismissal of paragraphs 4, 5, 6, and 7 of the complaint, which are made moot by the State’s action. CCPOA also argued in its charge that the State was obligated to implement its last, best and final offer with respect to rolling over the State Vice President’s Leave (VPL) provision. The PERS General Counsel’s complaint, in paragraphs 8 through 11, agreed with CCPOA on this narrow point by stating that, “the omission of [the VPL] provision was not reasonably comprehended within the meaning of the last, best and final offer presented to [CCPOA) prior to the implementation.” As articulated in greater detail in my December 7, 2007 letter to Les Chisholm, Division Chief, in PERS’s Office of the General Counsel, it is the State’s position that certain provisions, such as the VPL provision, were not subject to unilateral implementation by the employer and required agreement from both parties. Although the parties may continue to disagree about the legal nuances, the State, again with an eye toward remedying the violations alleged in the complaint, hereby agrees to implement the VPL section as provided to the CCPOA in its fast, best and final offer. CCPOA, through its charge, no doubt agrees that it will not only be able to avail itself/f of the rights of that VPL provision, but also will be bound by the provision’s obligations. As a result of the State’s agreement to implement the VPL provision, the State requests immediate dismissal of paragraphs 8, 9, 10, and 11 of the complaint, which are made moot by the State’s action. In summary, the State’s withdrawal of the offending latter two years of its economic package coupled with its agreement to implement the VPL section renders the entire complaint moot. As such, the State requests dismissal of the complaint.