State of California (Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation) (PERB 2250S)

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF THE
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
CALIFORNIA CORRECTIONAL PEACE
OFFICERS ASSOCIATION,
Charging Party,
V.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA (DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION),
Respondent.
Case No. SA-CE-1825-S
PERB Decision No. 2250-S
April 18, 2012
Appearances: Leanne M. Kent, Staff Legal Counsel, for California Correctional Peace
Officers Association; Department
of
Personnel Administration by Stephen Booth and
Heather N. Bendinelli, Labor Relations Counsels, for State
of
California (Department
of
Corrections and Rehabilitation).
Before Martinez, Chair; Dowdin Calvillo and Huguenin, Members.
DECISION
HUGUENIN, Member: 	This case is before the Public Employment Relations Board
(PERB or Board) on appeai by the California Correctional Peace· Officers Association
(CCPOA) from a partial dismissal
of
its unfair practice charge. The charge alleged that the
State
of
California (Department
of
Corrections and Rehabilitation) (CDCR) violated the
Ralph C. Dills Act (Dills Act) 1 by failing to meet and negotiate in good faith over the effects of
various policy changes. Among those policy changes were: 	scheduling of Casework
Specialists working as Casework Managers 	of Juvenile Justice (DJJ), and
scheduling of correctional officers in the California Rehabilitation Center (CRC).
The Dills Act is codified at Government Code section 3512 et seq. Unless otherwise
indicated, all statutory references herein are to the Government Code.

On June 1, 2011, the Board agent issued a complaint on several of CCPOA's
allegations. 	The Board agent dismissed the remainder of the allegations for failure to state a
prima facie case. On June 21, 2011, CCPOA appealed the partial dismissal of its allegations,
challenging only dismissal of the allegations concerning changes to scheduling of Casework
Specialists working as Casework Managers in the DJJ and allegations concerning changes to
scheduling of correctional officers in the CRC. On July 18, 2011, CDCR filed its opposition to
the appeal.
DISCUSSION
Request to Dismiss a Portion of Appeal
By letter dated October 18, 2011 from CCPOA, the parties notified PERB that they
settled various disputes, including, inter alia, their dispute over the effects of changes to
scheduling of Casework Specialists working as Case Managers in the DJJ. The parties request,
inter alia, that the following be dismissed: 	CCPOA' s appeal of "the issue appealed to the
Board on June 21, 2011, relating to the scheduling of Casework Specialists working as
Casework Managers in the Division of Juvenile Justice." The parties do not request to dismiss
the other issue appealed by CCPO A to the Board on June 21, 2011, to wit, allegations
concerning scheduling of correctional officers in the CRC. The parties' request to dismiss
which we will grant pertains only to the issue relating to the scheduling of Casework
Specialists working as Casework Managers in the DJJ. The Board has reviewed the entire
record and finds the dismissal of CCPOA' s appeal on this issue to be in the best interests of the
parties and consistent with PERB law and the Board's longstanding policy of encouraging the
voluntary settlement of disputes. 	(See Office of the Santa Clara County Superintendent of
Schools (1982) PERB Decision No. 233a.)
2

CCPOA's Appeal
In granting CCPOA's request for dismissal
of
a portion
of
the appeal, only one issue
remains for our disposition in this appeal, to wit, allegations concerning refusal
of
CDCR to
meet and negotiate in good faith over effects
of
changes to scheduling
of
correctional officers
in the CRC. We turn now to that matter.
CCPOA notes, correctly, that the Board agent's warning letter omitted reference to the
allegations in its initial statement
of
charge (p. 3, item C, subd.
1)
concerning "Change to
Start/Stop Times"
of
correctional officers at CRC. CCPOA asserts that by this omission the
Board agent failed to comply with PERB Regulation 32620(d).2
CDCR' s Response
CDCR filed a late response, and moves for leave to do so. It explains that its practice
with PERB appeals is to presume service by mail and to docket its response for 25 days from
receipt
of
an appeal, to wit, 20 days plus five days for service by mail documents. 	CDCR
notes, correctly, that the minimal delay
of
five days did not prejudice either CCPOA or PERB.
While we find CDCR's practice improvident at best, in this instance and given our disposition
of
this matter, we will find good cause to excuse the late filing. 	(PERB Reg. 32136.)
CDCR responds that the Board agent properly dismissed the allegations concerning
refusal
of
CDCR to meet and negotiate in good faith over effects
of
changes to scheduling
of
correctional officers in the CRC. Given our disposition of this matter, we will not reach that
question.
3
2 PERB regulations are codified at California Code of Regulations, title 8,
section 31001 et seq.

Disposition
In its amended statement
of
charge (p. 4, item
C,
subd.
1)
CCPOA expanded its
allegations on the issue
of
changes to the scheduling
of
correctional officers at the CRC. 	The
Board agent's subsequent partial dismissal letter describes the expanded allegations on this
issue (partial dismissal letter,
p.
7), but then fails to analyze their sufficiency for purposes
of
establishing a prima facie case.3 Accordingly, we are unable to determine whether the Board
agent intended but failed to include these allegations in the complaint, or instead intended but
failed to dismiss them.
Based on the entire record
of
this case, including the warning and partial dismissal
letters, CCPOA's appeal and CDCR's response thereto, we conclude that the issue raised
on
appeal by CCPOA, the status
of
its allegations concerning refusal
of
CDCR to meet and
negotiate in good faith over effects
of
changes to scheduling
of
correctional officers in the
CRC, must be remanded to PERB's Office
of
the General Counsel, either for issuance
of
a
complaint or dismissal.4
ORDER
The parties' request to withdraw and dismiss the California Correctional Peace Officers
Association's (CCPOA) appeal
of
the issue appealed to the Board on June 21, 2011, relating to
the scheduling
of
Casework Specialists working as Casework Managers in the Division
of
Juvenile Justice in Case No. SA-CE-1825-S is hereby GRANTED.
Reference in the partial dismissal letter at page
11
to a "proposed gun locker at
Transportation Headquarters" deals 	a different CCPOA allegation concerning changes to
a transportation policy for extradition bureau correctional officers, which is not at issue on
appeal.
4 We note that the case file reveals the complaint in this matter was withdrawn by
CCPOA on October 11, 2011, pursuant to a settlement between the parties.
4

The appeal by CCPOA from the partial dismissal
of
its allegations concerning refusal
of
the State
of
California (Department
of
Corrections and Rehabilitation)
to
meet and negotiate
in good faith over effects
of
changes
to
scheduling
of
correctional officers in the California
Rehabilitation Center in Case No. SA-CE-1825-S is hereby GRANTED, and the issue is
REMANDED to the Public Employment Relations Board's Office
of
the General Counsel
either for issuance
of
a complaint or dismissal.
Chair Martinez and Member Dowdin Calvillo joined in this Decision.
5