State of California (Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation) (PERB 2154S)

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF THE
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF THE
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
CALIFORNIA CORRECTIONAL PEACE
OFFICERS ASSOCIATION,
Charging Party,
V.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA (DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS & REHABILITATION),
Respondent.
CALIFORNIA CORRECTIONAL PEACE
OFFICERS ASSOCIATION,
Charging Party,
V .
STATE OF CALIFORNIA (DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS & REHABILITATION),
Case No. SA-CE-1595-S
PERB Decision No. 2154-S
December 30, 2010
Case No. SA-CE-1595-S
PERB Decision No. 2154-S
December 30, 2010
Appearances:	Appearances: 	Carroll, Burdick & McDonough by Gregg McLean Adam and Jennifer S.
Stoughton, Attorneys, for California Correctional Peace Officers Association; State
of
California (Department
of
Personnel Administration) by Will M. Yamada , Labor Relations
Counsel, for State
of
California (Department
of
Corrections & Rehabilitation).
Carroll, Burdick & McDonough by Gregg Mclean Adam and Jennifer S.
Respondent.
Before Dowdin Calvillo, Chair; McKeag and Wesley, Members.	Before Dowdin Calvillo, Chair; Mckeag and Wesley, Members.
DECISION	DECISION
McKEAG, Member: 	This case comes before the Public Employment Relations Board
(PERB or Board) on appeal by the State
of
California (Department
of
Corrections &
Rehabilitation) (State or CDCR)
of
a proposed decision by an administrative law judge (ALJ).
The charge alleged that CDCR violated the Ralph C. Dills Act (Dills
/i~ct)
McKEAG, Member: This case comes before the Public Employment Relations Board
1
when it unilaterally
removed retired annuitants from State Bargaining Unit 6 (BU 6) and refused to comply with a
Correctional	contractual obligation to withhold fair share fees from their paychecks. California
Peace Officers Association (CCPOA) alleged this conduct constituted a violation
of
Dills Act
sections 3513.6 and 3515.7.
The charge alleged that CDCR violated the Ralph C. Dills Act (Dills Act)' when it unilaterally
1
T The Dills Act is codified at Government Code section 3512 et seq. Unless otherwise
indicated, all statutory references herein are to the Government Code.
he Dills Act is codified at Government Code section 3512 et seq. Unless otherwise
Stoughton, Attorneys, for California Correctional Peace Officers Association; State of
California (Department of Personnel Administration) by Will M. Yamada , Labor Relations
Counsel, for State of California (Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation).
(PERB or Board) on appeal by the State of California (Department of Corrections &
Rehabilitation) (State or CDCR) of a proposed decision by an administrative law judge (ALJ).
removed retired annuitants from State Bargaining Unit 6 (BU 6) and refused to comply with a
contractual obligation to withhold fair share fees from their paychecks. California Correctional
Peace Officers Association (CCPOA) alleged this conduct constituted a violation of Dills Act
sections 3513.6 and 3515.7.
indicated, all statutory references herein are to the Government Code.

The ALJ held that since retired annuitants were included in BU 6 as part of the Board's
original unit determination, CDCR violated the Dills Act when it unilaterally removed these
employees from BU 6. Consequently, the ALJ ordered CDCR to cease and desist from
removing the retired annuitants from BU 6 and also ordered CDCR to make CCPOA whole for
the fees it did not collect as a result of its unlawful conduct.
The ALJ held that since retired annuitants were included in BU 6 as part of the Board's
We have reviewed the entire record in this case and conclude that retired annuitants
were never included in BU 6 and, therefore, were not unlawfully removed from BU 6 by
CDCR. In addition, since we find retired annuitants are not in BU 6, the State did not have a
duty to collect agency fees on behalf of CCPOA from retired annuitants performing work as
correctional officers. Accordingly, for the reasons set forth below, the Board reverses the
ALJ' s proposed decision and dismisses the charge.
We have reviewed the entire record in this case and conclude that retired annuitants
2
ALJ's proposed decision and dismisses the charge.
FINDINGS OF FACT	FINDINGS OF FACT
CDCR is a State employer within the meaning of section 3513, subdivision G).
CCPOA is the recognized employee organization within the meaning of section 3513,
subdivision (b) and the exclusive representative for BU 6.
CDCR is a State employer within the meaning of section 3513, subdivision (i).
Section 3513(h) of the Dills Act grants the Board the power to determine appropriate
bargaining units for State employees. 	Section 3521 sets forth the criteria for such unit
determinations. Pursuant to this power, the Board, in 1978, initiated a series of hearings to
determine the bargaining units for State employees. ( Unit Determination for the State of
Section 3513(h) of the Dills Act grants the Board the power to determine appropriate
bargaining units for State employees. Section 3521 sets forth the criteria for such unit
determinations. Pursuant to this power, the Board, in 1978, initiated a series of hearings to
determine the bargaining units for State employees. (Unit Determination for the State of
T The State requested oral argument in this matter. Historically, the Board has denied
requests for oral argument when an adequate record has been prepared, the parties had ample
opportunity to present briefs and have availed themselves of that opportunity, and the issues
before the Board are sufficiently clear to make oral argument unnecessary. (United Teachers
of Los Angeles (Valadez, et al.) (2001) PERB Decision No. 1453; Monterey County Office of
Education (1991) PERB Decision No. 913.) Based on our review of the record, all of the
above criteria are met in this case. Therefore, the State's request for oral argument are denied.
he State requested oral argument in this matter. Historically, the Board has denied
requests for oral argument when an adequate record has been prepared, the parties had ample
opportunity to present briefs and have availed themselves of that opportunity, and the issues
before the Board are sufficiently clear to make oral argument unnecessary. (United Teachers
of Los Angeles (Valadez, et al.) (2001) PERB Decision No. 1453; Monterey County Office of
Education (1991) PERB Decision No. 913.) Based on our review of the record, all of the
above criteria are met in this case. Therefore, the State's request for oral argument are denied.
22
original unit determination, CDCR violated the Dills Act when it unilaterally removed these
employees from BU 6. Consequently, the ALJ ordered CDCR to cease and desist from
removing the retired annuitants from BU 6 and also ordered CDCR to make CCPOA whole for
the fees it did not collect as a result of its unlawful conduct.
were never included in BU 6 and, therefore, were not unlawfully removed from BU 6 by
CDCR. In addition, since we find retired annuitants are not in BU 6, the State did not have a
duty to collect agency fees on behalf of CCPOA from retired annuitants performing work as
correctional officers. Accordingly, for the reasons set forth below, the Board reverses the
CCPOA is the recognized employee organization within the meaning of section 3513,
subdivision (b) and the exclusive representative for BU 6.

California (1979) PERB Decision No. 110-S (State Unit Determination).) Over 27,000 pages
of testimony was elicited from various parties during these hearings. (Ibid.) Based on these
hearings, the Board established 20 bargaining units for State employees. Included in that
determination was BU 6, the Correctional Unit. (Ibid.)
California (1979) PERB Decision No. 110-S (State Unit Determination).) Over 27,000 pages
of testimony was elicited from various parties during these hearings. (Ibid.) Based on these
hearings, the Board established 20 bargaining units for State employees. Included in that
determination was BU 6, the Correctional Unit. (Ibid.)
A. 	Union Security Provisions	A.
The Dills Act grants a union that has been recognized as an exclusive representative for
a State bargaining unit to negotiate with the State for union security provisions in the form of
fair share fees or maintenance of membership. Relevant to this discussion, the most recent
memorandum of understanding (MOU) between the parties states:3
The Dills Act grants a union that has been recognized as an exclusive representative for
memorandum of understanding (MOU) between the parties states:
a State bargaining unit to negotiate with the State for union security provisions in the form of
fair share fees or maintenance of membership. Relevant to this discussion, the most recent
3.02 	Agency Shop	3.02 Agency Shop
Since CCPOA has certified that it has a CCPOA membership of
at least fifty percent (50%) of the total number of full-time
employees in Unit 6, CCPOA is allowed to collect a 'fair share'
fee from non-CCPOA members who are employees in Bargaining
Unit 6.
Since CCPOA has certified that it has a CCPOA membership of
at least fifty percent (50%) of the total number of full-time
employees in Unit 6, CCPOA is allowed to collect a 'fair share'
fee from non-CCPOA members who are employees in Bargaining
Unit 6.
3
The fair share shall operate in accordance with the following:	The fair share shall operate in accordance with the following:
A. 	The State employer agrees to deduct and transmit to	A.
CCPOA all deductions authorized on a form provided by
CCPOA, and pursuant to Government Code Section 3515.7, to
deduct and transmit to CCPOA all fair share fees from State
employees in Unit 6 who do not elect to become members of
CCPOA. The State employer agrees to deduct and transmit all
deductions and fair share fees during the life of this MOU and
after the expiration of this MOU until: 	(1) a successor agreement
is reached, or (2) implementation of the State's last, best and final
offer after negotiations, whichever comes first. The State shall
deduct and transmit fair share fees effective with the first pay
period following ratification of this MOU. Such authorized dues
The State employer agrees to deduct and transmit to
3 Although the MOU between the parties expired on June 30, 2006, it continues in
effect unless changed through negotiations or the implementation of the employer's "last, best,
and final offer" after impasse is reached in negotiations. (Dills Act§ 3517.8)
Although the MOU between the parties expired on June 30, 2006, it continues in
3
Union Security Provisions
CCPOA all deductions authorized on a form provided by
CCPOA, and pursuant to Government Code Section 3515.7, to
deduct and transmit to CCPOA all fair share fees from State
employees in Unit 6 who do not elect to become members of
CCPOA. The State employer agrees to deduct and transmit all
deductions and fair share fees during the life of this MOU and
after the expiration of this MOU until: (1) a successor agreement
is reached, or (2) implementation of the State's last, best and final
offer after negotiations, whichever comes first. The State shall
deduct and transmit fair share fees effective with the first pay
period following ratification of this MOU. Such authorized dues
effect unless changed through negotiations or the implementation of the employer's "last, best,
and final offer" after impasse is reached in negotiations. (Dills Act $ 3517.8)

deductions and fair share fees shall be remitted monthly to
CCPOA along with an adequate itemized record of deductions.
CCPOA shall pay any reasonable costs incurred by the State
Controller. The State employer shall not be liable in any action
brought by a State employee seeking recovery of, or damages for,
improper use or calculation of fair share fees and CCPOA agrees
to hold the state employer harmless for any such action.
deductions and fair share fees shall be remitted monthly to
A. 	Retired Annuitants	A.
Retired annuitants have been performing temporary work in BU 6 since at least 1994.
According to Timothy Virga
Retired annuitants have been performing temporary work in BU 6 since at least 1994.
4 (Virga), the chief deputy warden at California State Prison
Sacramento, CDCR employed a limited number of retired annuitants, primarily parole agents,
as recently as 2002. However, since approximately 2005, there has been a significant increase
in the use of retired annuitants due to understaffing at the prisons.
According to Timothy Virga" (Virga), the chief deputy warden at California State Prison
Since June 2006, Jacquelyn Ann Cervantes (Cervantes) has been a senior labor
relations officer at DPA. For the prior 13 years, she worked in labor relations for CDCR. In
the Fall of 2001, Cervantes was a member of the State bargaining team negotiating a successor
MOU with CCPOA.
Since June 2006, Jacquelyn Ann Cervantes (Cervantes) has been a senior labor
relations officer at DPA. For the prior 13 years, she worked in labor relations for CDCR. In
the Fall of 2001, Cervantes was a member of the State bargaining team negotiating a successor
MOU with CCPOA.
Cervantes testified that during bargaining in 2001, CCPOA negotiator Steve Weiss
(Weiss) raised the subject of retired annuitants working in correctional officer positions. He
was interested in bringing the retired annuitants into BU 6 and making them pay dues. 	Weiss
was informed by State negotiators that they did not believe that retired annuitants were part of
BU 6. In fact, when asked whether CCPOA attorneys believed that retired annuitants were
covered by the Dills Act, Weiss told State negotiators that it was "questionable." State
Cervantes testified that during bargaining in 2001, CCPOA negotiator Steve Weiss
(Weiss) raised the subject of retired annuitants working in correctional officer positions. He
was interested in bringing the retired annuitants into BU 6 and making them pay dues. Weiss
was informed by State negotiators that they did not believe that retired annuitants were part of
BU 6. In fact, when asked whether CCPOA attorneys believed that retired annuitants were
covered by the Dills Act, Weiss told State negotiators that it was "questionable." State
4 Prior to his current assignment, Virga was employed as a labor relations officer at the
Department of Personnel Administration (DP A) and chief of labor relations at CDCR from
February 2002 to April 2007. Before that assignment, Virga was a correctional officer and
counselor, from 1983 to 2002, and he served in various capacities for CCPOA, including
chapter president and chief negotiator from 1984 to 1998.
Prior to his current assignment, Virga was employed as a labor relations officer at the
4
CCPOA along with an adequate itemized record of deductions.
CCPOA shall pay any reasonable costs incurred by the State
Controller. The State employer shall not be liable in any action
brought by a State employee seeking recovery of, or damages for,
improper use or calculation of fair share fees and CCPOA agrees
to hold the state employer harmless for any such action.
Retired Annuitants
Sacramento, CDCR employed a limited number of retired annuitants, primarily parole agents,
as recently as 2002. However, since approximately 2005, there has been a significant increase
in the use of retired annuitants due to understaffing at the prisons.
Department of Personnel Administration (DPA) and chief of labor relations at CDCR from
February 2002 to April 2007. Before that assignment, Virga was a correctional officer and
counselor, from 1983 to 2002, and he served in various capacities for CCPOA, including
chapter president and chief negotiator from 1984 to 1998.

negotiators invited CCPOA to submit a bargaining proposal regarding retired annuitants, but
CCPOA did not take further action.
negotiators invited CCPOA to submit a bargaining proposal regarding retired annuitants, but
B. 	Administrative Treatment of Retired Annuitants	B.
Donald Cathey (Cathey) is a correctional officer and the CCPOA chapter president at
the California Correctional Center (CCC) in Susanville. On December 4, 2007, the day before
attending the hearing in this matter, Cathey went to the personnel office at CCC and asked to
see the document signed by retired annuitants when they are hired. He was given a copy of a
Notice of Personnel Action Report of Appointment (NOP A) for a "Civil Service Retired
Employee" hired as a "Correctional Officer." The particular appointment would expire on
June 30, 2008. In part, the document informs the retired annuitant employee that "[f]or
collective bargaining purposes, you have been designated as rank and file in bargaining
unit 06."
Donald Cathey (Cathey) is a correctional officer and the CCPOA chapter president at
The State Controller's Office (SCO) withholds fair share fees from the paychecks of
those employees represented by a union who do not wish to become members and pay dues.
Notwithstanding the designation on the NOPA, the SCO does not automatically collect dues
and/or fair share fees for retired annuitants. In 1994, SCO informed State unions that it would
not collect fair share fees from retired annuitants unless they submitted a completed form. 	To
date, however, CCPOA has not requested that SCO collect fair share fees from retired
annuitants.
The State Controller's Office (SCO) withholds fair share fees from the paychecks of
those employees represented by a union who do not wish to become members and pay dues.
Notwithstanding the designation on the NOPA, the SCO does not automatically collect dues
and/or fair share fees for retired annuitants. In 1994, SCO informed State unions that it would
not collect fair share fees from retired annuitants unless they submitted a completed form. To
date, however, CCPOA has not requested that SCO collect fair share fees from retired
annuitants.
5
According to Arie Simon, a SCO program manager for collective bargaining support,
most of the unions representing State employees do not collect fair share fees from retired
annuitant employees. Presently, there are only four bargaining units in which retired
annuitants pay fair share fees.
According to Arle Simon, a SCO program manager for collective bargaining support,
5
CCPOA did not take further action.
Administrative Treatment of Retired Annuitants
the California Correctional Center (CCC) in Susanville. On December 4, 2007, the day before
attending the hearing in this matter, Cathey went to the personnel office at CCC and asked to
see the document signed by retired annuitants when they are hired. He was given a copy of a
Notice of Personnel Action Report of Appointment (NOPA) for a "Civil Service Retired
Employee" hired as a "Correctional Officer." The particular appointment would expire on
June 30, 2008. In part, the document informs the retired annuitant employee that "[fjor
collective bargaining purposes, you have been designated as rank and file in bargaining
unit 06."
most of the unions representing State employees do not collect fair share fees from retired
annuitant employees. Presently, there are only four bargaining units in which retired
annuitants pay fair share fees.

C. 	CCPOA's Grievance Regarding Retired Annuitants	C.
On November 10, 2006, CCPOA attorney Ronald Yank (Yank) sent a letter to Virga,
then the chief of labor relations at CDCR. Yank stated that CCPOA recently became aware
that CDCR was using retired annuitants as correctional officers. He asked that the letter be
considered a grievance over the use of retired annuitants to perform bargaining unit work. He
also stated that a separate violation of the MOU was the employer's failure to collect and
forward dues or fair share fees to CCPOA for the retired annuitants.
On November 10, 2006, CCPOA attorney Ronald Yank (Yank) sent a letter to Virga,
On December 28, 2006, Virga denied the grievance on behalf of CDCR. No fair share
fees have been withheld from the paychecks of retired annuitants working in the bargaining
unit represented by CCPOA.
On December 28, 2006, Virga denied the grievance on behalf of CDCR. No fair share
DISCUSSION	DISCUSSION
The threshold issue in this case is whether retired annuitants working as correctional
officers are in BU 6 by operation of the 1979 State Unit Determination. In that case, the Board
determined that all state employees working as correctional officers, parole agents, and
correctional counselors would be in a single bargaining unit. (State Unit Determination.)
Consequently, CCPOA argues that since the retired annuitants are performing bargaining unit
work, CCPOA should be entitled to collect agency fees from the annuitants. CDCR, on the
other hand, argues that retired annuitants were not included in BU 6 pursuant to State Unit
Determination and, therefore, the State did not have a duty to collect agency fees on behalf of
CCPOA.
The threshold issue in this case is whether retired annuitants working as correctional
officers are in BU 6 by operation of the 1979 State Unit Determination. In that case, the Board
determined that all state employees working as correctional officers, parole agents, and
correctional counselors would be in a single bargaining unit. (State Unit Determination.)
Consequently, CCPOA argues that since the retired annuitants are performing bargaining unit
work, CCPOA should be entitled to collect agency fees from the annuitants. CDCR, on the
other hand, argues that retired annuitants were not included in BU 6 pursuant to State Unit
Determination and, therefore, the State did not have a duty to collect agency fees on behalf of
CCPOA.
In State Unit Determination, the Board established 20 bargaining units for State
employees. In determining the appropriate bargaining units for the State's workforce, the
Board conducted extensive hearings and developed a record in excess of 27,000 pages. Using
In State Unit Determination, the Board established 20 bargaining units for State
employees. In determining the appropriate bargaining units for the State's workforce, the
Board conducted extensive hearings and developed a record in excess of 27,000 pages. Using
66
CCPOA's Grievance Regarding Retired Annuitants
then the chief of labor relations at CDCR. Yank stated that CCPOA recently became aware
that CDCR was using retired annuitants as correctional officers. He asked that the letter be
considered a grievance over the use of retired annuitants to perform bargaining unit work. He
also stated that a separate violation of the MOU was the employer's failure to collect and
forward dues or fair share fees to CCPOA for the retired annuitants.
fees have been withheld from the paychecks of retired annuitants working in the bargaining
unit represented by CCPOA.

facts from this record, the Board applied the unit determination criteria set forth in Dills Act
section 3521. According to the Board:
facts from this record, the Board applied the unit determination criteria set forth in Dills Act
We have sought to place employees with an internal and
occupational community
of
interest in appropriate units; we have
considered the effect such units will have on the meet and confer
relationships and on the efficient operations
of
the employer; we
have weighed the effect
of
a particular configuration
of
employees on the operations
of
the employer, on the objectives
of
providing the employees the right to effective representation, and
on the meet and confer relationship itself; and we have paid
particular attention to the impact on the meet and confer
relationship created by the fragmentation
of
employees and on
the proliferation
of
units.
We have sought to place employees with an internal and
Based on this review, the Board concluded, among other things, that State employees
working as correctional officers, parole agents, and correctional counselors would be in a
single bargaining unit, BU
6.
Based on this review, the Board concluded, among other things, that State employees
It is noteworthy that retired annuitants, as a class
of
employees, were not considered by
the Board when it formulated its decision. This is significant because retired annuitants do not
enjoy the same benefits or rights as those held by full-time employees. For example, retired
annuitants are at-will employees who may only work 960 hours per fiscal year. They do not
accrue vacation or sick leave. They are hired to perform a specific job on a temporary basis
and are not eligible to either promote or laterally transfer. Moreover, the use
of
retired
annuitants limits hiring, promotions and overtime for full-time employees. Consequently, the
use
of
retired annuitants potentially poses a direct conflict with the interests
of
full-time
employees.
It is noteworthy that retired annuitants, as a class of employees, were not considered by
the Board when it formulated its decision. This is significant because retired annuitants do not
enjoy the same benefits or rights as those held by full-time employees. For example, retired
annuitants are at-will employees who may only work 960 hours per fiscal year. They do not
accrue vacation or sick leave. They are hired to perform a specific job on a temporary basis
and are not eligible to either promote or laterally transfer. Moreover, the use of retired
annuitants limits hiring, promotions and overtime for full-time employees. Consequently, the
use of retired annuitants potentially poses a direct conflict with the interests of full-time
employees.
In light of the substantial distinctions between retired annuitants and full-time
employees, we find that an analysis of the unit determination criteria set forth in Dills Act
section 3521 regarding these distinctions is a necessary prerequisite to the inclusion of retired
In light of the substantial distinctions between retired annuitants and full-time
employees, we find that an analysis of the unit determination criteria set forth in Dills Act
section 3521 regarding these distinctions is a necessary prerequisite to the inclusion of retired
77
section 3521. According to the Board:
occupational community of interest in appropriate units; we have
considered the effect such units will have on the meet and confer
relationships and on the efficient operations of the employer; we
have weighed the effect of a particular configuration of
employees on the operations of the employer, on the objectives of
providing the employees the right to effective representation, and
on the meet and confer relationship itself; and we have paid
particular attention to the impact on the meet and confer
relationship created by the fragmentation of employees and on
the proliferation of units.
working as correctional officers, parole agents, and correctional counselors would be in a
single bargaining unit, BU 6.

annuitants in BU 6. Accordingly, since such an analysis was not performed by the Board, we
find retired annuitants were not included in BU 6 by operation of the State Unit Determination
case.
annuitants in BU 6. Accordingly, since such an analysis was not performed by the Board, we
A. 	Previous Board Decision	A.
The Board has considered the status of retired annuitants in one case arising under the
Higher Education 	Relations Act (HEERA)
The Board has considered the status of retired annuitants in one case arising under the
5. In Unit Determination for
Technical, Skilled Crafts, Service and Professional Employees of the University of California
(Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Casual Employees) (1983) PERB Decision Nos.
290-H and 290a-H (Lawrence Livermore I), the Board considered the appropriate unit
placement of various casual employees working at the Lawrence Livermore National
Laboratory (LLNL). Retired annuitants (referred to in the decision as indeterminate-time
retired employees) was one of the groups considered by the Board.
Higher Education Employer-Employee Relations Act (HEERA). In Unit Determination for	Employer-Employee
Technical, Skilled Crafts, Service and Professional Employees of the University of California
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Casual Employees) (1983) PERB Decision Nos.
290-H and 290a-H (Lawrence Livermore D), the Board considered the appropriate unit
placement of various casual employees working at the Lawrence Livermore National
Laboratory (LLNL). Retired annuitants (referred to in the decision as indeterminate-time
retired employees) was one of the groups considered by the Board.
8
After conducting a full evidentiary hearing, the Board concluded that retired annuitants
had the same benefits and working conditions as part-time employees (referred to in the
decision as indeterminate-time employees), except that the retired annuitants received the
pension and/or social security benefits that they earned as full-time employees. The Board
decided that since part-time employees were appropriately included in the bargaining unit,
retired annuitants would be properly included in the bargaining unit as well.
After conducting a full evidentiary hearing, the Board concluded that retired annuitants
Notwithstanding this finding, both parties stipulated that retired annuitants be excluded
from the various bargaining units at LLNL. In light of the Board's conclusion, it rejected the
stipulation. However, to satisfy the mutual desire of the parties, the Board construed the
stipulation as an amendment of the parties' initial unit petitions to exclude retirees. Thereafter,
Notwithstanding this finding, both parties stipulated that retired annuitants be excluded
5 HEERA is codified at section 3560 et seq.	HEERA is codified at section 3560 et seq.
8
find retired annuitants were not included in BU 6 by operation of the State Unit Determination
case.
Previous Board Decision
had the same benefits and working conditions as part-time employees (referred to in the
decision as indeterminate-time employees), except that the retired annuitants received the
pension and/or social security benefits that they earned as full-time employees. The Board
decided that since part-time employees were appropriately included in the bargaining unit,
retired annuitants would be properly included in the bargaining unit as well.
from the various bargaining units at LLNL. In light of the Board's conclusion, it rejected the
stipulation. However, to satisfy the mutual desire of the parties, the Board construed the
stipulation as an amendment of the parties' initial unit petitions to exclude retirees. Thereafter,

the Board accepted the parties' constructive deletion of retirees from their petitions and
determined that retired annuitants were not included in the unit.
the Board accepted the parties' constructive deletion of retirees from their petitions and
B. 	Retired Annuitants Are Not Automatically Placed In Bargaining Units	B.
The Board's decision in Lawrence Livermore I stands for the proposition that retired
annuitants are not automatically placed in units containing full-time employees performing
similar tasks. Rather, retired annuitants will be placed in such units if they are included in a
unit determination or modification petition and if, following a full unit hearing, the Board
determines they are appropriately placed in that unit.
The Board's decision in Lawrence Livermore I stands for the proposition that retired
annuitants are not automatically placed in units containing full-time employees performing
similar tasks. Rather, retired annuitants will be placed in such units if they are included in a
unit determination or modification petition and if, following a full unit hearing, the Board
determines they are appropriately placed in that unit.
Here, there is nothing in the record to suggest that the initial unit petitions for
correctional officers sought to include retired annuitant into BU 6. Indeed, as discussed above,
the Board did not conduct any analysis regarding the appropriate placement of retired
annuitants or, alternatively, any analysis of the employment distinctions unique to retired
annuitants. Accordingly, consistent with Lawrence Livermore I, we find retired annuitants in
this case were not automatically placed in BU 6 by operation of the State Unit Determination
case. Therefore, the State did not breach its duty to collect agency fees on behalf of CCPOA
for retired annuitants performing work as correctional officers.
Here, there is nothing in the record to suggest that the initial unit petitions for
The Board has held that parties may not utilize the unfair practice procedure to
circumvent the unit modification process. (Berkeley Unified School District (2005) PERB
Decision No. 1744 (Berkeley).) Here, the instant charge seeks the addition ofretired
annuitants to BU 6 without reference to the unit modification process. Therefore, pursuant to
Berkeley, CCPOA's charge is invalid and is properly dismissed.
The Board has held that parties may not utilize the unfair practice procedure to
circumvent the unit modification process. (Berkeley Unified School District (2005) PERB
Decision No. 1744 (Berkeley).) Here, the instant charge seeks the addition of retired
annuitants to BU 6 without reference to the unit modification process. Therefore, pursuant to
Berkeley, CCPOA's charge is invalid and is properly dismissed.
In reaching this decision, we do not express an opinion regarding the appropriate unit
placement for retired annuitants. That determination is properly made pursuant to the unit
In reaching this decision, we do not express an opinion regarding the appropriate unit
placement for retired annuitants. That determination is properly made pursuant to the unit
99
determined that retired annuitants were not included in the unit.
Retired Annuitants Are Not Automatically Placed In Bargaining Units
correctional officers sought to include retired annuitant into BU 6. Indeed, as discussed above,
the Board did not conduct any analysis regarding the appropriate placement of retired
annuitants or, alternatively, any analysis of the employment distinctions unique to retired
annuitants. Accordingly, consistent with Lawrence Livermore I, we find retired annuitants in
this case were not automatically placed in BU 6 by operation of the State Unit Determination
case. Therefore, the State did not breach its duty to collect agency fees on behalf of CCPOA
for retired annuitants performing work as correctional officers.

modification process. (Berkeley.) Consequently, if CCPOA desires the inclusion of retired
annuitants in BU 6, they must file a petition for unit modification in accordance with PERB
Regulation 32781.
modification process. (Berkeley.) Consequently, if CCPOA desires the inclusion of retired
6
The dissent argues that since the Board in Unit Determination for Technical, Skilled
Crafts, Service and Professional Employees of the University of California (Lawrence
Livermore National Laboratory Casual Employees) (1983) PERB Decision No. 290a-H
(Lawrence Livermore II) determined that retired annuitants were properly included in units
containing full-time employees performing similar tasks, retired annuitants working as
correctional officers are properly placed in BU 6. For the reasons set forth below, we
respectfully disagree.
The dissent argues that since the Board in Unit Determination for Technical, Skilled
In Lawrence Livermore II, the University of California sought reconsideration of the
Lawrence Livermore I decision on the basis that it did not agree to the constructive deletion of
retired annuitants from the unit determination petition. Based on this statement, the Board
reversed its determination that retired annuitants were not included in the unit determination
petition and applied its prior analysis regarding the appropriate unit placement of retired
annuitants. (Lawrence Livermore II.)
In Lawrence Livermore II, the University of California sought reconsideration of the
Lawrence Livermore I decision on the basis that it did not agree to the constructive deletion of
retired annuitants from the unit determination petition. Based on this statement, the Board
reversed its determination that retired annuitants were not included in the unit determination
petition and applied its prior analysis regarding the appropriate unit placement of retired
annuitants. (Lawrence Livermore II.)
10
In reaching its decision, the Board did not reverse the portion of Lawrence Livermore I
that concluded retired annuitants were not in the bargaining unit because they were not
included in the initial unit determination petition. Instead, the Board merely applied its prior
analysis regarding the appropriate unit placement of retired annuitants. Consequently, the
Lawrence Livermore line of cases continue to stand for the proposition that retired annuitants
are not automatically placed in units containing full-time employees performing similar tasks.
In reaching its decision, the Board did not reverse the portion of Lawrence Livermore I
6 PERB regulations are codified at California Code of Regulations, title 8,
section 31001 et seq.
PERB regulations are codified at California Code of Regulations, title 8,
annuitants in BU 6, they must file a petition for unit modification in accordance with PERB
Regulation 32781.6
Crafts, Service and Professional Employees of the University of California (Lawrence
Livermore National Laboratory Casual Employees) (1983) PERB Decision No. 290a-H
Lawrence Livermore II) determined that retired annuitants were properly included in units
containing full-time employees performing similar tasks, retired annuitants working as
correctional officers are properly placed in BU 6. For the reasons set forth below, we
respectfully disagree.
that concluded retired annuitants were not in the bargaining unit because they were not
included in the initial unit determination petition. Instead, the Board merely applied its prior
analysis regarding the appropriate unit placement of retired annuitants. Consequently, the
Lawrence Livermore line of cases continue to stand for the proposition that retired annuitants
are not automatically placed in units containing full-time employees performing similar tasks.
section 31001 et seq.

With regard to the Board's analysis in Lawrence Livermore II, the Board held:	With regard to the Board's analysis in Lawrence Livermore II, the Board held:
The single difference that all of the retirees receive pension and/or social
security benefits, so that their work eligibility is limited to 90 days of
employment in any one year at the risk of losing retirement benefits, is not
sufficient to distinguish the two types of indeterminate time employees and
exclude the retirees from the unit.
The single difference that all of the retirees receive pension and/or social
security benefits, so that their work eligibility is limited to 90 days of
employment in any one year at the risk of losing retirement benefits, is not
sufficient to distinguish the two types of indeterminate time employees and
exclude the retirees from the unit.
We find the Board's cursory analysis in Lawrence Livermore II is not dispositive in this
case, and further analysis pursuant to a petition for unit modification is necessary in order to
determine the appropriate placement of the retired annuitants.
We find the Board's cursory analysis in Lawrence Livermore II is not dispositive in this
C. 	Administrative Treatment Of Retired Annuitants	C. Administrative Treatment Of Retired Annuitants
In its appeal, CCPOA notes that retired annuitants are informed upon returning to State
service that they are in BU 6. In addition, CCPOA notes that it was informed by the SCO that
agency fees could be collected from retired annuitants upon request. Last, CCPOA notes that
in 2001, the State's chief negotiator invited CCPOA to make a bargaining proposal regarding
the collection of dues and/or agency fees from the retired annuitants. According to CCPOA,
these factors provide strong indicia that retired annuitants are in BU 6.
In its appeal, CCPOA notes that retired annuitants are informed upon returning to State
PERB, however, is vested with the exclusive authority to determine appropriate
bargaining units for State employees. Thus, to the extent the actions of the SCO conflict, or
are otherwise inconsistent, with PERB' s unit determinations, PERB' s determinations control.
Consequently, the actions of the SCO have little probative value regarding the bargaining unit
placement of State employees.
PERB, however, is vested with the exclusive authority to determine appropriate
bargaining units for State employees. Thus, to the extent the actions of the SCO conflict, or
are otherwise inconsistent, with PERB's unit determinations, PERB's determinations control.
Consequently, the actions of the SCO have little probative value regarding the bargaining unit
placement of State employees.
With regard to the bargaining proposal, Cervantes testified that during bargaining in
2001, CCPOA asked State negotiators about collecting dues from retired annuitants.
According to Cervantes, CCPOA was informed that the State did not believe retired annuitants
With regard to the bargaining proposal, Cervantes testified that during bargaining in
2001, CCPOA asked State negotiators about collecting dues from retired annuitants.
According to Cervantes, CCPOA was informed that the State did not believe retired annuitants
1 1	11
case, and further analysis pursuant to a petition for unit modification is necessary in order to
determine the appropriate placement of the retired annuitants.
service that they are in BU 6. In addition, CCPOA notes that it was informed by the SCO that
agency fees could be collected from retired annuitants upon request. Last, CCPOA notes that
in 2001, the State's chief negotiator invited CCPOA to make a bargaining proposal regarding
the collection of dues and/or agency fees from the retired annuitants. According to CCPOA,
these factors provide strong indicia that retired annuitants are in BU 6.

were covered by the union security provisions in the MOU, but the State would entertain a
bargaining proposal to address the issue.
were covered by the union security provisions in the MOU, but the State would entertain a
At most, this evidence shows the parties were unsure about the status of retired
annuitants. However, given PERB's exclusive authority to determine appropriate bargaining
units, the subjective belief of the parties regarding the appropriate unit placement of the retired
annuitants is irrelevant. Accordingly, we find these arguments lack merit.
At most, this evidence shows the parties were unsure about the status of retired
annuitants. However, given PERB's exclusive authority to determine appropriate bargaining
units, the subjective belief of the parties regarding the appropriate unit placement of the retired
annuitants is irrelevant. Accordingly, we find these arguments lack merit.
D. 	CCPOA's Failure To Submit A CD-88 Form To The SCO	D. CCPOA's Failure To Submit A CD-88 Form To The SCO
Even.if the Board was to find that retired annuitants are members of BU 6 by virtue of
the State Unit Determination decision, we would nonetheless conclude that CDCR's failure to
deduct fair share fees from retired annuitants in BU 6 did not violate the Dills Act. The
complaint alleged that CDCR's failure to deduct the fees constituted an unlawful unilateral
change. A unilateral change in terms and conditions of employment constitutes a "per se"
violation of Dills Act section 3519, subdivision (c)
Even. if the Board was to find that retired annuitants are members of BU 6 by virtue of
7 if: (1) the State breached or altered the
parties' written agreement or its own established past practice; (2) such action was taken without
giving the other party notice or an opportunity to bargain over the change; (3) the change was not
merely an isolated breach of the contract, but amounts to a change in policy (i.e., it has a
generalized effect or continuing impact upon bargaining unit members' terms and conditions of
employment); and (4) the change in policy concerns a matter within the scope of representation.
(State of California (Department of Personnel Administration) (1998) PERB Decision
No. 1296-S; Grant Joint Union High School District (1982) PERB Decision No. 196.)
violation of Dills Act section 3519, subdivision (c)' if: (1) the State breached or altered the
the State Unit Determination decision, we would nonetheless conclude that CDCR's failure to
deduct fair share fees from retired annuitants in BU 6 did not violate the Dills Act. The
complaint alleged that CDCR's failure to deduct the fees constituted an unlawful unilateral
change. A unilateral change in terms and conditions of employment constitutes a "per se"
parties' written agreement or its own established past practice; (2) such action was taken without
giving the other party notice or an opportunity to bargain over the change; (3) the change was not
merely an isolated breach of the contract, but amounts to a change in policy (i.e., it has a
generalized effect or continuing impact upon bargaining unit members' terms and conditions of
employment); and (4) the change in policy concerns a matter within the scope of representation.
(State of California (Department of Personnel Administration) (1998) PERB Decision
No. 1296-S; Grant Joint Union High School District (1982) PERB Decision No. 196.)
12
7 Dills Act section 3 5 I 9, subdivision (c) makes it unlawful for the State to "[ r]efuse or
fail to meet and confer in good faith with a recognized employee organization."
"Dills Act section 3519, subdivision (c) makes it unlawful for the State to "[refuse or
12
bargaining proposal to address the issue.
fail to meet and confer in good faith with a recognized employee organization."

We find no unilateral change here. SCO does not automatically deduct fair share fees
from the paychecks of retired annuitants.
We find no unilateral change here. SCO does not automatically deduct fair share fees
8 Instead, since 1994 a union has been required to
submit a CD-88 form to the SCO in order for fair share fees to be collected from retired
annuitants. It is undisputed that CCPOA has never submitted a CD-88 form. 	Because CCPOA
failed to follow this procedure, neither CDCR nor SCO has ever been obligated to deduct fair
share fees from retired annuitants in BU 6. Thus, the State's failure to deduct the fees was not
a unilateral change in policy.
from the paychecks of retired annuitants. Instead, since 1994 a union has been required to
CONCLUSION	CONCLUSION
The Board finds retired annuitants were never included in BU 6 and, therefore, were not
unlawfully removed from BU 6 by CDCR. In addition, since retired annuitants are not in
BU 6, the Board finds the State did not breach its duty to collect agency fees on behalf of
CCPOA from retired annuitants performing work as correctional officers. However, even if
retired annuitants were in BU 6, there was no breach of the duty to bargain because, due to
CCPOA's failure to file the proper form with SCO, the State has never been obligated to
collect fair share fees from retired annuitants in BU 6.
The Board finds retired annuitants were never included in BU 6 and, therefore, were not
ORDER	ORDER
The complaint and underlying unfair practice charge in Case No. SA-CE-1595-S are
hereby DISMISSED.
The complaint and underlying unfair practice charge in Case No. SA-CE-1595-S are
Chair Dowdin Calvillo joined in this Decision.	Chair Dowdin Calvillo joined in this Decision.
Member Wesley's concurrence/dissent begins on page 14.	Member Wesley's concurrence/dissent begins on page 14.
13
8 It is the SCO, not CDCR, that deducts fair share fees and remits them to the
appropriate union.
It is the SCO, not CDCR, that deducts fair share fees and remits them to the
13
submit a CD-88 form to the SCO in order for fair share fees to be collected from retired
annuitants. It is undisputed that CCPOA has never submitted a CD-88 form. Because CCPOA
failed to follow this procedure, neither CDCR nor SCO has ever been obligated to deduct fair
share fees from retired annuitants in BU 6. Thus, the State's failure to deduct the fees was not
a unilateral change in policy.
unlawfully removed from BU 6 by CDCR. In addition, since retired annuitants are not in
BU 6, the Board finds the State did not breach its duty to collect agency fees on behalf of
CCPOA from retired annuitants performing work as correctional officers. However, even if
retired annuitants were in BU 6, there was no breach of the duty to bargain because, due to
CCPOA's failure to file the proper form with SCO, the State has never been obligated to
collect fair share fees from retired annuitants in BU 6.
hereby DISMISSED.
appropriate union.

WESLEY, Member, concurring and dissenting. I respectfully dissent from the
majority's determination that retired annuitants are not included in State Bargaining Unit 6
(BU 6).
WESLEY, Member, concurring and dissenting. I respectfully dissent from the
On July 1, 1978, the State Employer-Employee Relations Act (SEERA) 1 became
effective, granting collective bargaining rights to state employees. Thereafter, the Public
Employment Relations Board (PERB or Board) began the process of deciding appropriate
bargaining units. In Unit Determination/or the State of California (1979) PERB Decision
No. 110-S (Unit Determination No.110-S), the Board applied the criteria set forth in
section 3 521 to establish 20 State of California (State) bargaining units comprised of
appropriate job classifications.
On July 1, 1978, the State Employer-Employee Relations Act (SEERA)' became
In establishing BU 6, the Board found "a unit of corrections employees to be
appropriate." The Board stated, "Employees in this unit share a community of interest within
the meaning of section 3 521 (b )(1) based on their involvement in the custody, supervision and
treatment of wards and inmates .... " (Unit Determination No. 110-S, p. 27.)
In establishing BU 6, the Board found "a unit of corrections employees to be
appropriate." The Board stated, "Employees in this unit share a community of interest within
the meaning of section 3521(b)(1) based on their involvement in the custody, supervision and
treatment of wards and inmates . . . ." (Unit Determination No. 1 10-S, p. 27.)
14
In phase III of the process for deciding appropriate units, the Board considered which
employees and positions should be excluded from the bargaining units as managerial,
confidential or supervisory employees, or otherwise excluded pursuant to section 3513(c ).
(Unit Determination/or the State of California (1980) PERB Decision No. 1 l0c-S.) The
Board found that "the essence of [the statute] is to extend SEERA rights to all State employees
except those proven to be managerial, confidential, or supervisory." (Ibid., p. 2; emphasis in
In phase III of the process for deciding appropriate units, the Board considered which
1 SEERA was later named the Ralph C. Dills Act (Dills Act).	SEERA was later named the Ralph C. Dills Act (Dills Act).
14
majority's determination that retired annuitants are not included in State Bargaining Unit 6
(BU 6).
effective, granting collective bargaining rights to state employees. Thereafter, the Public
Employment Relations Board (PERB or Board) began the process of deciding appropriate
bargaining units. In Unit Determination for the State of California (1979) PERB Decision
No. 110-S (Unit Determination No. 1 10-S), the Board applied the criteria set forth in
section 3521 to establish 20 State of California (State) bargaining units comprised of
appropriate job classifications.
employees and positions should be excluded from the bargaining units as managerial,
confidential or supervisory employees, or otherwise excluded pursuant to section 3513(c).
(Unit Determination for the State of California (1980) PERB Decision No. 1 10c-S.) The
Board found that "the essence of [ the statute] is to extend SEERA rights to all State employees
except those proven to be managerial, confidential, or supervisory." (Ibid., p. 2; emphasis in

original; fn. omitted.) The Board reached conclusions on most exclusions, but remanded
certain disputed employee exclusions to a hearing officer.
original; fn. omitted.) The Board reached conclusions on most exclusions, but remanded
certain disputed employee exclusions to a hearing officer.
In Unit Determination for the State of California (1981) PERB Decision No. 1 lOd-S
( Unit Determination No. I I Od-S), the Board adopted the hearing officer's findings that
intermittent employees are included in the appropriate units, but casual trades employees are
excluded because they are not State employees.
In Unit Determination for the State of California (1981) PERB Decision No. 110d-S
2	excluded because they are not State employees.
These decisions establish that the Board placed positions in the bargaining units on the
basis of related job classifications. There is no indication the Board intended to exclude
employees in the same classifications who work in less than permanent, full-time positions,
such as retired annuitants.
These decisions establish that the Board placed positions in the bargaining units on the
In more recent decisions, the Board has continued to hold that employees in less than
permanent, full-time positions are included in the bargaining units. In State of California
(Department of Personnel Administration) (1985) PERB Decision No. 532-S, a case involving
a decertification effort in State Bargaining Unit 1, the Board stated:
In more recent decisions, the Board has continued to hold that employees in less than
permanent, full-time positions are included in the bargaining units. In State of California
(Department of Personnel Administration) (1985) PERB Decision No. 532-S, a case involving
a decertification effort in State Bargaining Unit 1, the Board stated:
[T]here is no dispute that both permanent-intermittent employees
and temporary-intermittent employees are members of Unit 1.
Both groups of intermittent employees are employed in the job
classifications listed in that unit by PERB in [Unit Determination
No. 110-S}.
[TJhere is no dispute that both permanent-intermittent employees
and temporary-intermittent employees are members of Unit 1.
Both groups of intermittent employees are employed in the job
classifications listed in that unit by PERB in [Unit Determination
No. 1 10-SJ.
In State of California (Department of Personnel Administration), supra, PERB
Decision No. 787-S, the Department of Personnel Administration filed a unit modification
petition seeking to remove seasonal lifeguards from the bargaining unit, claiming they were
not State employees. The Board held that seasonal lifeguards are civil service State employees
In State of California (Department of Personnel Administration), supra, PERB
2 In State of California (Department of Personnel Administration) (1990) PERB
Decision No. 787-S, the Board overruled the approach applied in Unit Determination
No. I I Od-S for deciding whether an employee has civil service status.
In State of California (Department of Personnel Administration) (1990) PERB
Decision No. 787-S, the Board overruled the approach applied in Unit Determination
No. 1 10d-S for deciding whether an employee has civil service status.
15	15
(Unit Determination No. 1 10d-S), the Board adopted the hearing officer's findings that
intermittent employees are included in the appropriate units, but casual trades employees are
basis of related job classifications. There is no indication the Board intended to exclude
employees in the same classifications who work in less than permanent, full-time positions,
such as retired annuitants.
Decision No. 787-S, the Department of Personnel Administration filed a unit modification
petition seeking to remove seasonal lifeguards from the bargaining unit, claiming they were
not State employees. The Board held that seasonal lifeguards are civil service State employees

covered by the Dills Act and remain in the bargaining unit. The seasonal nature of the
classification did not have any bearing on whether the position was included in the bargaining
unit. In State of California, Department of Personnel Administration (1991) PERB Decision
No. 871-S, the Board held that the cook classifications held by members of the California
Conservation Corps, whether seasonal or limited term, are State civil service employees for
purposes of the Dills Act and the classifications are included in a bargaining unit.
covered by the Dills Act and remain in the bargaining unit. The seasonal nature of the
After the Higher Education Employer-Employee Relations Act (HEERA)3 was enacted,
the Board issued a series of decisions establishing the bargaining units for employees of the
University of California (University). In Unit Determination for Technical, Skilled Crafts,
Service and Professional Employees of the University of California (Lawrence Livermore
National Laboratory Casual Employees) (1983) PERB Decision No. 290-H, the Board
considered whether retired annuitants (termed indeterminate-time employees) should be
included in the bargaining units. The Board concluded that the differences in benefits and
limits on the length of employment for retired annuitants did not serve to exclude retired
annuitants from the University bargaining units.
After the Higher Education Employer-Employee Relations Act (HEERA) was enacted,
4
annuitants from the University bargaining units.*
Based on these cases, I find that the retired annuitants working in the classifications
included in BU 6, are appropriately included in the bargaining unit.
Based on these cases, I find that the retired annuitants working in the classifications
included in BU 6, are appropriately included in the bargaining unit.
16
I concur, however, in the majority's determination that the State's failure to deduct fair
share fees from retired annuitants in BU 6 did not violate the Dills Act.
I concur, however, in the majority's determination that the State's failure to deduct fair
3 HEERA is codified at section 3560 et seq.	3HEERA is codified at section 3560 et seq.
4 The Board initially excluded retired annuitants based on a perception that during the
hearing the unions no longer sought to include retired annuitants in the bargaining units. The
Board reversed this determination on reconsideration and held retired annuitants are included
in the various University bargaining units. (Unit Determination for Technical, Skilled Crafts,
Service and Professional Employees of the University of California (Lawrence Livermore
National Laboratory Casual Employees) (1983) PERB Decision No. 290a-H.)
*The Board initially excluded retired annuitants based on a perception that during the
16
classification did not have any bearing on whether the position was included in the bargaining
unit. In State of California, Department of Personnel Administration (1991) PERB Decision
No. 871-S, the Board held that the cook classifications held by members of the California
Conservation Corps, whether seasonal or limited term, are State civil service employees for
purposes of the Dills Act and the classifications are included in a bargaining unit.
the Board issued a series of decisions establishing the bargaining units for employees of the
University of California (University). In Unit Determination for Technical, Skilled Crafts,
Service and Professional Employees of the University of California (Lawrence Livermore
National Laboratory Casual Employees) (1983) PERB Decision No. 290-H, the Board
considered whether retired annuitants (termed indeterminate-time employees) should be
included in the bargaining units. The Board concluded that the differences in benefits and
limits on the length of employment for retired annuitants did not serve to exclude retired
share fees from retired annuitants in BU 6 did not violate the Dills Act.
hearing the unions no longer sought to include retired annuitants in the bargaining units. The
Board reversed this determination on reconsideration and held retired annuitants are included
in the various University bargaining units. (Unit Determination for Technical, Skilled Crafts,
Service and Professional Employees of the University of California (Lawrence Livermore
National Laboratory Casual Employees) (1983) PERB Decision No. 290a-H.)

The State Controller's Office (SCO) is responsible for collecting fair share fees and
remitting them to the unions that exclusively represent the employees in the State bargaining
units. In approximately 1994, the SCO initiated an automated fair share fee program. At that
time, all unions were informed by the SCO that they must submit a form (CD-88) to request
the SCO to collect fair share fees from retired annuitants. SCO Program Manager Arle Simon
(Simon) testified that at present four unions have submitted the appropriate form to initiate the
collection
of
fair share fees from retired annuitants within their bargaining units. 	Simon
testified that on numerous occasions she spoke with California Correctional Peace Officers
Association (CCPOA) representative Ralph Guerrero, explaining that CCPOA simply needed
to submit the form to obtain fair share fees from retired annuitants. Simon stated that the form
is available on the SCO website.
The State Controller's Office (SCO) is responsible for collecting fair share fees and
I concur in the majority's finding that because CCPOA failed to utilize the procedure
that SCO explained to union representatives, the State did not breach a duty to collect fair
share fees from retired annuitants in BU 6.
I concur in the majority's finding that because CCPOA failed to utilize the procedure
that SCO explained to union representatives, the State did not breach a duty to collect fair
share fees from retired annuitants in BU 6.
17	17
remitting them to the unions that exclusively represent the employees in the State bargaining
units. In approximately 1994, the SCO initiated an automated fair share fee program. At that
time, all unions were informed by the SCO that they must submit a form (CD-88) to request
the SCO to collect fair share fees from retired annuitants. SCO Program Manager Arle Simon
(Simon) testified that at present four unions have submitted the appropriate form to initiate the
collection of fair share fees from retired annuitants within their bargaining units. Simon
testified that on numerous occasions she spoke with California Correctional Peace Officers
Association (CCPOA) representative Ralph Guerrero, explaining that CCPOA simply needed
to submit the form to obtain fair share fees from retired annuitants. Simon stated that the form
is available on the SCO website.