In a recent decision, the Public Employment Relations Board found the County of Santa Clara violated the MMBA when it banned the union president from trading shifts with other employees. Like many employers in public safety, the Santa Clara County Sheriff's Department allows employees to trade shifts to get special days off. The Santa Clara County Correctional Peace Officers Association president made use of the day trades in part to connect with members working different shifts. Then, the Department banned the union president from doing so ostensibly because he did not repay a day. But the Department's reasoning fell apart under scrutiny and the Board held the Department's conduct constituted unlawful interference.
The Board also disapproved of prior decisions that said interference with a union's rights did not necessarily follow from discrimination against a labor leader. The Board found prior cases, including, Novato Unified School District, are "contrary to the overwhelming weight of PERB case law on this issue." Therefore, the Board found the Department's retaliatory conduct also violated the union's rights.
Mastagni Holstedt Senior Associate Jeffrey R. A. Edwards represented the Santa Clara County Correctional Peace Officers Association in the matter.
Showing posts with label correctional deputies. Show all posts
Showing posts with label correctional deputies. Show all posts
Wednesday, November 15, 2017
Monday, January 30, 2017
Third Appellate District Upholds Elimination of Pension Pick Ups
In San Joaquin County Correctional Officers' Association v. County of San Joaquin the Court of Appeal upheld a County’s ability to force employees to pay a portion of cost of living (“COLA”) adjustments to their retirement program. This case involved two laws governing public employee retirement, the County Employees Retirement Law of 1937 (“CERL”) and the Public Employees’ Pension Reform Act of 2013 (“PEPRA”).
Prior to PEPRA’s passage, the default retirement program arrangement was that counties and county employees shared the cost of COLA contributions to retirement programs. However, as an option, CERL permitted counties to pay all of the cost of COLA contributions of its employees if it chose to do so. This was known as a “pickup.” This pick up was a common strategy employed by Counties to provide a benefit that was less expensive than a salary adjustment. In 1975, San Joaquin was one of the counties that agreed to pay the employee share of COLA contributions as part of some of its MOUs.
PEPRA was passed in 2013 to reduce unfunded liabilities in public employee retirement systems. One of PEPRA’s provisions seeks to eliminates the pickups of the employee share of COLA contributions, but does not take effect until 2018.
In 2012, the County negotiated a new MOU with the San Joaquin County Correctional Officers’ Association which eliminated the pickup. The membership voted the MOU down and impasse procedures were engaged. Once impasse was reached, the County unilaterally imposed the elimination of its pick up as part of last best and final offer. The Association challenged the imposition arguing that PEPRA shielded them from such a change until 2018.
Rejecting the Association's challenge, the Court found counties have always had the power to eliminate or reduce pickup under CERL. The CERL permitted the pick up employee costs of COLA contributions, but did not require the pickups nor restrict the employers ability to modify or eliminate them. The court concluded, “In short, the County always has had the power to eliminate the COLA pickup, subject to labor laws, and those laws permitted the county to do so in the event of a bargaining impasse, which occurred. Nothing in PEPRA limited the County’s power in this regard.”
Interestingly, the court cited Marin Assn. of Public Employees v. Marin County Employees’ Retirement Assn. (2016) 2 Cal. App. 5th 674, 681, review granted Nov. 22, 2016, (MAPE) in explaining "the historical backdrop animating recent pension reform legislation in California", but "express[ed] no view" over MAPE's "interpretation of precedent regarding the validity of changes to retirement benefits."
Prior to PEPRA’s passage, the default retirement program arrangement was that counties and county employees shared the cost of COLA contributions to retirement programs. However, as an option, CERL permitted counties to pay all of the cost of COLA contributions of its employees if it chose to do so. This was known as a “pickup.” This pick up was a common strategy employed by Counties to provide a benefit that was less expensive than a salary adjustment. In 1975, San Joaquin was one of the counties that agreed to pay the employee share of COLA contributions as part of some of its MOUs.
PEPRA was passed in 2013 to reduce unfunded liabilities in public employee retirement systems. One of PEPRA’s provisions seeks to eliminates the pickups of the employee share of COLA contributions, but does not take effect until 2018.
In 2012, the County negotiated a new MOU with the San Joaquin County Correctional Officers’ Association which eliminated the pickup. The membership voted the MOU down and impasse procedures were engaged. Once impasse was reached, the County unilaterally imposed the elimination of its pick up as part of last best and final offer. The Association challenged the imposition arguing that PEPRA shielded them from such a change until 2018.
Rejecting the Association's challenge, the Court found counties have always had the power to eliminate or reduce pickup under CERL. The CERL permitted the pick up employee costs of COLA contributions, but did not require the pickups nor restrict the employers ability to modify or eliminate them. The court concluded, “In short, the County always has had the power to eliminate the COLA pickup, subject to labor laws, and those laws permitted the county to do so in the event of a bargaining impasse, which occurred. Nothing in PEPRA limited the County’s power in this regard.”
Interestingly, the court cited Marin Assn. of Public Employees v. Marin County Employees’ Retirement Assn. (2016) 2 Cal. App. 5th 674, 681, review granted Nov. 22, 2016, (MAPE) in explaining "the historical backdrop animating recent pension reform legislation in California", but "express[ed] no view" over MAPE's "interpretation of precedent regarding the validity of changes to retirement benefits."
Thursday, August 11, 2016
Court of Appeal Rules Correctional Deputies Can Carry Firearms Off-Duty Without CCW
On August 11, 2016, the Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District ruled in a published decision that correctional deputies under Penal Code section 830.1(c) have the same right to carry firearms off-duty as as enforcement deputies and police officers who are peace officers under Penal Code section 830.1(a).
In Stanislaus County Deputy Sheriffs' Association v. County of Santa Clara et al., the County argued correctional deputies were not entitled to the same rights as enforcement deputies under the Penal Code because they cease to have peace officer status or authority outside of their particular custodial assignments. But the Court rejected that claim, finding that correctional deputies under section 830.1(c) are treated the same as section 830.1(c) peace officers with regard to the exemption. As a result, the Court rejected distinguishing between them and and found that "Section 830.1, subdivision (c), declares without any qualification that a custodial deputy is a peace officer."
In Stanislaus County Deputy Sheriffs' Association v. County of Santa Clara et al., the County argued correctional deputies were not entitled to the same rights as enforcement deputies under the Penal Code because they cease to have peace officer status or authority outside of their particular custodial assignments. But the Court rejected that claim, finding that correctional deputies under section 830.1(c) are treated the same as section 830.1(c) peace officers with regard to the exemption. As a result, the Court rejected distinguishing between them and and found that "Section 830.1, subdivision (c), declares without any qualification that a custodial deputy is a peace officer."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)