The San Francisco DSA has recently obtained two (2) separate PERB Complaints for unfair labor practices committed by the Sheriff's Office. The first involves protecting DSA member's right to continue earning and using CTO to mitigate the excessive amounts of overtime mandated by SF's refusal to adequately staff the department and the second unfair labor practice involves the departmental managers interference in DSA elections.
Unilateral Limitations on Right to Earn and Burn CTO
The DSA recently prevailed in a heated interest arbitration with the City and County of San Francisco over the terms of a successor contract. The continued ability of the DSA membership to earn and burn CTO was the highest priority issue for both parties. SF wanted to restrict this right in order to reduce overtime costs associated with the department's chronic under staffing. Despite that the DSA retained the right to earn and burn CTO in the interest arbitration, the department attempted to exploit the COVID-19 pandemic as an excuse to unilaterally eliminate member's CTO rights.
On March 23, 2020, CCSF announced that it was suspending CTO
earn and burn based on the COVID-19 public heath emergency. The “emergency”
exceptions to meet and confer requirements are limited. CCSF did not have any
financial emergency or staffing shortage that warranted the change. Rather, it
was evident CCSF saw another opportunity, citing COVID-19, to accomplish its
goal of taking away CTO earn and burn.
On April 28, 2020, SFDSA filed another charge based on CCSF’s
unilateral decision to suspend the Compensatory Time Off (CTO) agreement. The
CTO agreement allows DSA members to “earn” CTO up to 160 hours and then “burn”
the hours before they can accrue again. CCSF has made numerous attempts to take
away CTO earn and burn.
On December 2, 2020, PERB issued a complaint alleging CCSF
committed an unfair labor practice by failing to provide notice and an
opportunity to meet and confer over its unilaterally implemented changes to CTO
earn and burn.
The declared COVID-19 “public health emergency” does not give employers free reign to unilaterally implement changes to wages, hours, or working conditions within the scope of representation.
Interference
On December 30, 2019, the San Francisco Deputy Sheriffs’
Association (DSA) filed a PERB Charge based on the City and County of San
Francisco’s (CCSF) unlawful interference. The Meyers-Milias-Brown Act (MMBA)
prohibits employers and their agents from interfering with, intimidating,
restraining, coercing, or discriminating against union members and representatives
based on their protected activity.
Management employees, like captains and sergeants, are
“agents” of the employer. They have a duty of “strict neutrality” regarding
union affairs. This means union members have a right to participate in selecting
their union leaders without management interference.
During a contested DSA presidential election, Sheriff
Department management posted on Facebook encouraging DSA members to vote for the
challenging candidate. The posts criticized the incumbent President’s spending
decisions, alleged “cheating” during the election campaign, and violations of
the bylaws.
The DSA attempted to resolve the matter informally. The DSA
was assured CCSF would it would take action to correct the behavior.
Unfortunately, immediately following this assurance, the involved captain
complained about the incumbent President addressing his members during briefing.
Emails indicated the Department intended to launch an internal affairs
investigation.
On November 25, 2020, PERB issued a Complaint against CCSF.
Based on the DSA’s charge, PERB’s complaint includes allegations CCSF’s agents
committed an unfair labor practice by interfering with the DSA’s and their
members’ protected activity. The complaint also alleges CCSF committed an
unfair labor practice by launching a complaint based on the President’s
protected activity attending the briefing.
The complaint solidifies the purposes of the MMBA to protect against employers influencing union elections. Union leaders cannot effectively advocate for their members if they’re in management’s pocket. Clearly then, members’ rights to select their leaders must be free from management coercion.
