County of Plumas (PERB 1938M)

1 printed pages contain little extracted OCR body text; searchable legal-body completeness has not been established for those pages.

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF THE
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD

MICHAEL DAVID WILSON,
Charging Party, Case No. SA-CE-446-M
Vv. PERB Decision No. 1938-M
COUNTY OF PLUMAS, January 11, 2008
Respondent.

Appearances: Michael David Wilson, on his own behalf; Clinton P. Walker, Deputy County
Counsel, for County of Plumas.

Before Neuwald, Chair; Shek and McKeag, Members.
DECISION

SHEK, Member: This case comes before the Public Employment Relations Board
(Board) on appeal by Michael David Wilson (Wilson) of a Board agent’s dismissal (attached)
of his unfair practice charge. The unfair practice charge alleged that the County of Plumas
(County) violated the Trial Court Employment Protection and Governance Act (Trial Court
Act)! and the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act (MMBA) by: (1) entering into an allegedly illegal
contract with the Plumas Superior Court and the Plumas County Sheriffs Department
concerning a state-funded position under trial court funding; (2) failing to provide
representation for the correctional officer/bailiff position; and (3) engaging in unfair labor
practices since the Administrative Office of the Courts assumed trial court funding.

The Board has reviewed the entire record in this matter, including the original and

amended unfair practice charge, the warning and dismissal letters, Wilson’s appeal of

‘Trial Court Act is codified at Government Code section 71600, et seq.

*-MMBA is codified at Government Code section 3500, et seq.

dismissal, and the County's response. The Board finds the dismissal of this case was proper
and adopts the warning and dismissal letters as the decision of the Board itself.
ORDER
The unfair practice charge in Case No. SA-CE-446-M is hereby DISMISSED
WITHOUT LEA VE TO AMEND.
Chair Neuwald and Member McKeag joined in this Decision.
2

STATE
OF
CALIFORNIA 	(
/,,.-
( 	ARNOLD
SCHWARZENEGGER,
Governor	
============~=-
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
Sacramento Regional Office
1031
18th Street
Sacramento, CA 95814-4174
Telephone: (916) 327-8384
Fax: (916) 327-6377
June
5,
2007
Michael David Wilson
Re: 	Michael David Wilson
v.
County
of
Plumas
Unfair Practice Charge No. SA-CE-446-M, First Amended Charge
DISMISSAL LETTER
Dear Mr. Wilson:
The above-referenced unfair practice charge was filed with the Public Employment Relations
Board (PERB or Board) on December 4, 2006. Michael David Wilson alleges that the County
of
Plumas violated the Trial Court Employment Protection and Governance Act (Trial
CourtAct). 1
I informed you in my attached letter dated March 14, 2007, that the above-referenced charge
did not state a prima facie case. 	You were advised that,
if
there were any factual inaccuracies
or additional facts which would correct the deficiencies explained in that letter, you should
amend the charge. You were further advised that, unless you amended the charge
to
state a
prima facie case or withdrew it prior to March 26, 2007, the charge would be dismissed. I later
granted your requests to extend that deadline. On April 30, 2007, you filed a First Amended
Charge.
The First Amended Charge provides, in its entirety:
I wish to resubmit claim #SA-CE-446-M. All documents
supporting the allegations filed 12-04-16 and documents dated
and submitted O1-27-07 support this claim. (Copies are already
in your office.) This claim is resubmitted under MMBA. (Gov.
Code sec. 3500 et seq.)
As stated in the Warning Letter, the charge failed to state a prima facie violation
of
the Trial ·
Court Act because it appeared that you were an employee
of
the County
of
Plumas, not
of
the
Plumas County Superior Court. The amended charge appears to abandon claims under the
Trial Court Act and to allege violations
of
the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act (MMBA). To the
extent that the amended charge alleges violations of the Trial Court Act, they are dismissed.
Allegations that the County violated the MMBA are addressed below.
The charge referenced the following Government Code sections: 71634, 71634.2,
71634.3, 71631, 71635.1, 71636.

SA-CE-446-M
June 5, 2007
Page 2
The Warning Letter contemplated that you might amend the charge to allege violations
of
the
MMBA and noted that the charge did not provide the specific facts necessary to determine
whether the County had violated the MMBA. The Warning Letter advised you to provide the
"who, what, when, where, and how"
of
an unfair practice. The Warning Letter also noted that
if
you were employed in a position under Penal Code section 830.1 you would be outside
of
PERB' s jurisdiction. As the First Amended charge did not provide the requested information,
the First Amended Charge does not correct the deficiencies noted in the Warning Letter. As
such, the charge does not demonstrate a prima facie violation
of
the MMBA and must
be
dismissed.
Right to Appeal
Pursuant to PERB Regulations,2 you may obtain a review
of
this dismissal
of
the charge
by
filing an appeal to the Board itself within twenty (20) calendar days after service
of
this
dismissal. 	(Regulation 32635(a).) Any document filed with the Board must contain the case
name and number, and the original and five (5) copies
of
all documents must be provided to
the Board.
A document is considered "filed" when actually received during a regular PERB business day.
(Regulations 32135(a) and 32130; see also Government Code section l 1020(a).) A document
is also considered "filed" when received by facsimile transmission before the close
of
business
together with a Facsimile Transmission Cover Sheet which meets the requirements
of
Regulation 32135(d), provided the filing party also places the original, together with the
required number
of
copies and proof
of
service, in the U.S. mail. (Regulations 32135(b), (c)
and (d); see also Regulations 32090 and 32130.)
The Board's address is:
Public Employment Relations Board
Attention: Appeals Assistant
1031 18th Street
Sacramento, CA 95814-4174
(916) 322-8231
FAX: (916) 327-7960
If you file a timely appeal of the refusal to issue a complaint, any other party may file with the
Board an original and five copies of a statement in opposition within twenty (20) calendar days
following the date of service of the appeal. 	(Regulation 32635(b ). )
2 PERB's Regulations are codified at California Code of Regulations, title 8, section
31001 et seq.

SA-CE-446-M
June 5, 2007
Page 3
Service
All documents authorized to be filed herein must also be "served" upon all parties to the
proceeding, and a "proof
of
service" must accompany each copy
of
a document served
upon
a
party or filed with the Board itself. 	(See Regulation 32140 for the required contents.)
The
document will be considered properly "served" when personally delivered or deposited
in
the
mail or deposited with a delivery service and properly addressed. A document may also
be
concurrently served via facsimile transmission on all parties to the proceeding. 	(Regulation
32135(c).)
Extension
of
Time
A request for an extension
of
time, in which to file a document with the Board itself,
must be
in writing and filed with the Board at the previously noted address. A request for an extension
must be filed at least three (3) calendar days before the expiration
of
the time required for
filing the document. 	The request must indicate good cause for and,
if
known, the position
of
each other party regarding the extension, and shall be accompanied by proof
of
service
of
the
. request upon each party. 	(Regulation 32132.)
Final Date
If
no appeal is filed within the specified time limits, the dismissal will become final
when the
time limits have expired.
Sincerely,
TAMI R. BOGERT
General Counsel
By 
Tammy
SaIDB'el
Senior Regional Attorney
Attachments
cc: 	Barbara Thompson
Clinton P. Walker

STATE
OF
CALIFORNIA 	ARNOLD
SCHWARZENEGGER,
Governor	
(---	
(
==============-	
==============
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
Sacramento Regional Office
1031 18th Street
Sacramento,
CA
95814-4174
Telephone: (916) 327-8384
Fax: (916) 327-6377
March 14, 2007
Michael David Wilson
Re: 	Michael David Wilson
v.
County
of
Plumas
Unfair Practice Charge No. SA-CE-446-M
WARNING LETTER
Dear Mr. Wilson:
The above-referenced unfair practice charge was filed with the Public Employment Relations
Board (PERB or Board) on December 4, 2006. Michael David Wilson alleges that the County
of
Plumas violated the Trial Court Employment Protection and Governance Act (Trial
CourtAct. 	In addition to the unfair practice charge, on February
5,
2007 you filed a letter regarding
this charge. 1 My investigation revealed the following information.
The County
of
Plumas (County) employs Wilson as a Correctional Officer II. As such,
he
is
exclusively represented by the Plumas County Sheriff's Association. The County and theAssociation have a Memorandum
of
Understanding effective by its terms between May 1,
2005 and April 30, 2007. The MOU's recognition clause does not specify which
classifications are in the bargaining unit represented by the Association.
The County also has a Memorandum
of
Understanding with the Plumas County Superior Court
(Court) to provide the Court with bailiff services. 	Article 3.2(d)
of
that MOU provides,
in
pertinent part:
Sheriff/Bailiff Services. The County will provide to the Court
two (2) contractual full-time bailiffs for fiscal year 2005/2006.
The bailiffs' primary function will be to act as Courtroom bailiffs
when Court is in session; when Court is not in session, bailiffs
shall provide perimeter security in and around the Court offices
and Courtrooms. The Court and the County agree that the basic
costs for the services of the two full-time contractual bailiffs shall
be $159,589.41 (included in this amount is uniform allowance
and travel/training costs). This basic cost does not include
overtime or holiday pay which will be paid at the rates listed
below.
1 The letter objected to, inter alia, the charge being placed in abeyance and the
Respondent missing its deadline to file a position statement. The charge has not been placed in
abeyance. 	The Respondent received an extension of time to file a position statement.

SA-CE-446-M
March 14, 2007
Page 2
On
a quarterly basis, the Court shall reimburse County
$39,897.36 for the basic full-time contractual bailiff costs. In
addition the Court shall reimburse County for any actual expense
incurred related to extra bailiffs, overtime and holiday pay. 	In the
event
of
unsatisfactory bailiff services, the Court will notify the
Sheriff's Department and the Sheriff's Department will take
corrective action.
Additionally, the Court and the County agree to re-visit the cost
issue
of
security services during the term
of
this MOU,
if
necessary, due to legislative changes, specifically SB 1396, the
Court Law Enforcement Act
of
2002.
Wilson's identification badge indicates, "This is to certify that M. David Wilson is a duly
sworn bailiff
of
the Sheriff
of
the County
of
Plumas, State
of
California," and is signed
by the
Sheriff-Coroner Terry Bergstrand. 	Wilson's paycheck indicates that he is paid by the
County
of
Plumas.
Wilson provided bailiff services to the Court pursuant to the MOU between the County
and
the
Court. However, at some point, Wilson complained and was subsequently reassignedto
work
in the County's jail. 	Wilson filed a grievance regarding that matter, which has apparently
settled. Wilson began working at the Court again on January 16, 2007.
The charge provides, in pertinent part:
Unfair labor practices include:
a) Illegal contract between Plumas County, Plumas Superior
Court and the Plumas County Sheriff's Office concerning a
California State funded position (Trial Court funding)
b) Non-representation for the correctional officer/bailiff position,
which is a courthouse security officer position (peace officer
position)? It is treated as a private contracted position.
c) Unfair labor practices have been going on since the
Administrative Office
of
the Courts took over the trial court
funding from the very beginning.
* 	* 	* 	* 	* 	* 	* 	* 	*

SA-CE-446-M
March 14, 2007
Page 3
The above-stated information fails to state a prima facie violation
of
the Trial Court Act for the
reasons that follow. 	Trial Court Act section 71601(1) and (m) provide:
For purposes
of
this chapter, the following definitions shall
apply:
(1)
"Trial court employee" means a person who is both
of
the
following:
(1) Paid from the trial court's budget, regardless
of
the funding
source. For the purpose
of
this paragraph, "trial court's budget"
means funds from which the presiding judge
of
a trial court, or
his or her designee, has authority to control, authorize, and direct
expenditures, including, but not limited to, local revenues, all
grant funds, and trial court operations funds.
(2) Subject to the trial court's right to control the manner and
means
of
his or her work because
of
the trial court's authority to
hire, supervise, discipline, and terminate employment. For
purposes
of
this paragraph only, the "trial court" includes the
judges
of
a trial court or their appointees who are vested with or
delegated the authority to hire, supervise, discipline, and
terminate.
(m) A person is a "trial court employee"
if
and only
if
both
paragraphs (1) and (2)
of
subdivision
(1)
are true irrespective
of
job classification or whether the functions performed by that
person are identified in Rule 810
of
the California Rules
of
Court.
The phrase "trial court employee" includes those subordinate
judicial officers who satisfy paragraphs (1) and (2)
of
subdivision
(1).
	The phrase "trial court employee" does not include temporary
employees hired through agencies, jurors, individuals hired by the
trial court pursuant to an independent contractor agreement,
individuals for whom the county or trial court reports income to
the Internal Revenue Service on a Form 1099 and does not
withhold employment taxes, sheriffs, and judges whether elected
or appointed. Any temporary employee, whether hired through
an agency or not, shall not be employed in the trial court for a
period exceeding 180 calendar days, except that for court
reporters in a county of the first class, a trial court and a
recognized employee organization may provide otherwise by
mutual agreement in a memorandum of understanding or other
agreement.

SA-CE-446-M
March 14, 2007
Page 4
Wilson is paid by the County, not the Court. As such, it appears that Wilson
is
employed
by
the County, and not the Court. Unless the charge demonstrates that Wilson is an employee
of
the Court, Wilson is without standing to allege a violation
of
the Trial Court Act. As such, this
charge must be dismissed.
As an employee
of
the County, Wilson could allege that the County violated the Meyers-
Milias-Brown Act (MMBA). The charge, as currently written, does not provide the specific
facts necessary to determine whether the County has violated the MMBA. A charging
party
must allege the "who, what, when, where, and how"
of
an unfair practice. 	(United Teachers-
Los Angeles (Ragsdale) (1992) PERB Decision 944.) Mere legal conclusions are insufficient.
(See State
of
California (Department
of
Food and Agriculture (1994) PERB Decision No.
1071-S.) As presently written, the charge does not provide the requisite facts necessary to
demonstrate a prima facie violation.
It appears from the charge that Wilson believes that his position
is
a position under Penal Code
section 830.1. Although the charge does not provide facts supporting that conclusion, and the
Respondent indicated that the position was not a position defined as a peace officer position
under Penal Code section 830.1, it should be noted that PERB does not have jurisdiction over
peace officers
as
defined in Penal Code section 830.1. MMBA section 3511 provides:
The changes made to Sections 3501, 3507.1, and 3509
of
the
Government Code by legislation enacted during the 1999-2000
Regular Session
of
the Legislature shall not apply to persons who
are peace officers
as
defined in Section 830.1
of
the Penal Code.
For these reasons the charge, as presently written, does not state a prima facie case.
	If
there
are any factual inaccuracies in this letter or additional facts that would correct the deficiencies
explained above, please amend the charge. The amended charge should be prepared on a
standard PERB unfair practice charge form, clearly labeled First Amended Charge, contain all
the facts and allegations you wish to make, and be signed under penalty
of
perjury by the
charging party. The amended charge must have the case number written on the top right hand
corner
of
the charge form. The amended charge must be served on the respondent's
representative and the original proof
of
service must be filed with PERB.
If
I do not receive an
amended charge or withdrawal from you before March 26, 2007, I shall dismiss your charge.
If you have any questions, please call me at the above telephone number.
Sincerely,
Tammy Samsel
Senior Regional Attorney