UPEC792 Web Log

SRMC Management Agrees to Return to Mediation

2008-07-23T05:07:00Z

REDDING - The Attorney representing SRMC in negotiations with the Union said they are willing to meet with UPEC and continue to mediate. SRMC Nurses overwhelmly rejected managements last offer in June. SRMC expressed their disappointment that the Nurses rejected their last offer but are willing to meet with union nurses again. In a letter to UPEC Negotiator Mike Lyon, SRMC Attorney Frank Birchfield said their “financial position has become more precarious… and it is highly doubtful, however, that SRMC will be in a position to offer any additional concessions”. UPEC has contacted the Federal Mediator and is waiting for mediation dates. The nurses have been working without a contract since May 31st.

City Council Wants Public Input on PERS Retirement

2008-07-23T04:37:01Z

Pacific Grove - The Pacific Grove City Council voted 4-3 in favor of placing an advisory measure on the November ballot. The City filed a resolution yesterday with the Monterey Elections Department. The advisory vote will ask the citezens of Pacific Grove their opinion of taking the City Employees out of the CALPERS Retirement System and placing them into a 401K type of plan. UPEC was unable to obtain the exact language today and told to call back after August 8th.
The City Council had previous voted 3-4 against placing CALPERS item on the ballot in their July 2nd meeting following comments from Fire, Police and UPEC representatives. A week later the item was back on the City Council agenda for the July 16th meeting. Business Manager Chris Darker said the CIty Council is determined to do away with CALPERS claiming that the retirement system is too costly and to blame for their projected budget shortfall.

UNION RALLY DRAWS OVER 150 SUPPORTERS

2008-07-18T23:01:00Z

WILLOWS , CA – The Union that represents Glenn County Superior Court employees announced today that a law suit has been filed against the Court in Federal District Court in Eastern Sacramento, California. Chris Darker, Business Manager for the United Public Employees of California, Local 792 made the announcement at a Union Solidarity Rally held in Willows, California on Monday, July 14, 2008.

The EEOC conducted an extensive investigation of the Glenn County Superior Court in Willows, California and determined that court administration had failed to promote its employee, Norma Raygoza, a Hispanic female, based upon her race in 2005. Following the determination by the EEOC, court administration finally promoted Ragoza from a Court Clerk II to a Court Clerk III in August 2007. “Norma is an excellent employee who, because of her race, was denied a promotion for nearly two and one-half years longer than her fellow Caucasian workers”, stated Darker. Ragoza has worked for the court since February 2000.

The Union and Raygoza, assisted by EEOC representatives, met with court administration in January 2008 in an attempt to settle issues such as lost wages and benefits. The court refused to make any settlement and continued to deny any wrongdoing. “The lack of any settlement offer by the
Court clearly shows their contempt for the law and total disrespect for those of Hispanic origin”, stated Darker.

The United States Department of Justice issued a “Right to Sue” letter to Norma Raygoza in April 2008 giving her 90 days to file an action against the Glenn Courts. Raygoza has received the backing of her labor union and retained the Law Firm of Sacramento attorney Paul Q. Goyette who filed the suit in the Federal District Court for Eastern Sacramento County, California today.

The suit is filed against the Glenn County Superior Court, Assistant Court Executive Officer Janelle Bartlett and Chief Court Executive Officer Tina Burkhart. The complaint alleges the defendants discriminated and retaliated against Norma Raygoza, specifically: 1. Discrimination Violation of Title VII (42 U.S.C. §2000, et seq.); 2. Discrimination Violation of FEHA (Gov. Code § 12940, et seq.): 3. Retaliation in Violation of Title VII (42. U.S.C. § 2000, et seq.); 4. Retaliation in Violation of FEHA (Gov. Code § 12940, et seq.)

“Our Union will not stand for racism in the workplace and as a union we will go the extra mile to ensure our members are protected against these bigots and see that justice is served. As American Citizens we have protections under the United States Constitution”, stated Darker in front of Raygoza supporters.

Hispanic Police claim bias in suit against Denver Police Department

2008-07-18T16:58:01Z

From The Rocky Mountain News, July 16
DENVER, CO – Sixteen current or former officers, all of them Latino, are filing a class-action lawsuit alleging longtime discrimination patterns against the Denver Police Department.
The lawsuit, announced today at a news conference by the National Latino Peace Officers Association, claims minorities have not been promoted like whites, have been pushed out of the training academy and have been forced into a hostile work environment. Those who complain have had a fake bomb placed in their desk, been called traitors and have found themselves getting slower backup, it states.
Sgt. Leonard Mares played the audio of a training tape from 1979 in which an officer yelled a series of racist, sexist and homophobic statements at recruits. Some of those who were trained then are now in leadership at the force, and the pattern of discrimination has become systemic, Mares said.
“When does the training stop for non-white officers? Ten years? Twenty years? Thirty years?” Mares said. “These hurtful behaviors have always been accepted by many in the Denver Police Department.”
The lawsuit seeks unspecified monetary damages for unpaid income, retroactive pay and unpaid severance, among other things. It also demands that the department eradicate its “unlawful employment practices” and reinstate the plaintiffs to jobs they would have held if not for the discrimination.

Federal Law Suit Filed Against Court

2008-07-16T20:02:00Z

Willows - Glenn Superior Court Administrators will soon land in court as defendants. The Law firm of Goyette and Associates filed a law suit in Federal Court Monday on behalf of UPEC member Norma Ragoza. Raygoza, a Court Clerk was denied promotion for 2.5 years longer than her fellow Caucasian workers. The EEOC spent over 18 months conducting an investigation of the complaint filed by Ragoza and ruled that Glenn Superior Court had discriminated against Raygoza “because of her race, hispanic.” “Norma is an excellent and loyal employee with a great written record of performance. She doesn’t deserve what Court Administrators have done to her”, stated UPEC Business Manager Chris Darker. Norma is possibly facing another 18 months before her case is finally resolved.

Voter Registration Training

2008-07-16T18:57:00Z

REDDING - Avoter registration training will be held at the UPEC Union Hall on Wednesday, July 23, 2008 beginning at 6:30pm. The main purpose of the meeting is to train new voter registration (VR) volunteers and to review and update verteran VR’s on current trends.

Trinity County Behavioral Health Transportation Aides Win Battle for Pay

2008-07-16T18:51:00Z

On July 15, 2008 this item was brought forth to the Trinity County Board of Supervisor’s. The Director, who has stood behind her employees from the beginning, again stepped up to the plate and explained everything to the Board when she was asked to do so. After asking a few questions Supervisor Howard Freeman stated that the minimal pay they were giving these employees was little compensation for the job that they performed for the County, and he went on to commend each of the aides for the job that they do. The Board unanimously voted to pay all transportation aides $2.50 per hour for standby/on-call pay and this pay would be retroactive back to December 2007.

Thanks to Transportation Aide, Shirley Kapps, whose help made this process reach a successful conclusion.

Solidarity Rally and Picnic

2008-07-09T22:34:00Z

WILLOWS - UPEC Local 792 will sponsor a Solidarity Rally and Picnic on Monday, July 14, 2008. Union members are encouraged to stand up for Norma Raygoza in support of her fight for justuce. The Rally will be in front of the Glenn Superior Court House on 526 West Sycamore Street in Willows at 11:30am. Union members should wear their union shirts or hats. Union shirts will be available prior to the rally for UPEC members. The picnic will be at Sycamore Park just 2 short blocks from the Courthouse beginning at 12:00 noon. Food will be served and a donation is requested for the Norma Raygoza Legal Defense Fund. Business Manager Chris Darker said our union members and their families should feel free to attend. “We have a right to free speach and right to peacefull assembly, said Darker. Union members should comply with their contract and make sure they are on a lunch break, vacation time or off duty.

PRESIDIO NEGOTIATIONS RESUME

2008-07-03T18:33:00Z

San Francisco - Negotiations are resuming in San Francisco to settle the first-ever labor contract for the 180 employees working at the Presidio Trust. Negotiations had previously stalled on management’s unwillingness to negotiate basic issues such as wages, benefits and employee status (eliminating at-will status).

At the direction of Business Manager Darker, Senior Labor Representative Steve Allen has attended meetings in San Francisco with LIUNA International Attorney Bob Purcell. Attorney Purcell has been very dedicated in organizing and representing this unit since its inception a number of years ago.

Through the legislative resources of our International Union, LIUNA, Purcell recommended a bill be introduced to the United States Congress to legislatively enact the very same provisions that Management refused to bargain over. Only after the bill was drafted for introduction did Management agree to resume negotiations on these key issues. We will know at the end of a two day session scheduled for next week on July 9th and 10th whether Management is serious about negotiating an agreement.

Our Local would also like to thank Chief Steward Norm Infusio and bargaining team members Sam, Margaret and Paul for their perseverance and dedication to the bargaining process. We will get a contract!

UPEC FIGHTS CITY HALL!

2008-07-03T18:10:00Z

Pacific Grove - UPEC Representative Rick Burruss attended a meeting of the Pacific Grove City Council July 2nd to argue to the Council that it should not approve an Ordinance Change that would make all City employees “at will” subject to the City Manager’s discretion. Burruss explained to the Council that their action would violate the State Constitution and case law whereby California public employees have a “property interest” in their positions once they pass initial probation. The property interest that employees enjoy requires a due process procedure for any discipline to be legal. Despite UPEC’s presentation, and presentations from other City bargaining units including police and fire associations, the City Council voted 4-3 to approve the proposed ordinance.

At issue is the City Charter which indeed does include an “at will” statement.

In light of the City Council’s vote, UPEC Business Manager Chris Darker directed staff and legal counsel Goyette and Associates to take all appropriate legal and political action to protect and reinstate our member’s permanent status job protections. For starters, Senior Labor Representative Steve Allen will use the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) on line form to file an Unfair Practice Charge against the City for unilaterally changing a negotiable condition of employment without completing the bargaining process.

On another matter, the City Council also considered placing an advisory measure on the November ballot to ask citizens to vote on whether or not the City should drop out of PERS and instead enroll employees in a 457 deferred compensation plan. This was seen by UPEC as a back door approach to eliminating PERS over the next several years. Rick Burruss and other association representatives also addressed the Council on this topic and thankfully persuaded the Council to drop the ballot attempt, this time on a 4-3 vote in our favor,

Good job, Rick! We will stay on top of this important issue of job security for our members.

Shasta Regional Medical Center RN’s Overwhelmingly Reject Managements Offer

2008-06-27T14:19:00Z

Management also agreed to picking up 80% of any insurance increase, however, their offer was only good for the first two of the four years. This would leave the nurses bargaining over any increase in years three and four with management not having any obligation to pay any of the increases in these two years.

Because of the salary and insurance issues we told the Mediator that we would not be endorsing this proposal, however, we would take it to the members for a vote.

The Union has forwarded the results to management with a request that they return to the bargaining table. We are awaiting their reply.

SRMC RN Unit Update

2008-06-20T16:24:00Z

We have a comprehensive update for SRMC RN’s for all employees available for download from the site.

For more information, and two files including a description of the last best final offer from SRMC to the Union, visit our downloads section.

(You must have a member account to access the downloads section of the site).

Use of Compensatory Time Off for Public Employees

2008-06-04T15:23:01Z

by Gary Goyette

Next time you get a public employee who believes their request for use of compensatory time off (CTO) must be granted by the employer for specific dates requested, PLEASE REMEMBER that our friends at Mastagni litigated this exact issue up to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal and lost (to Terence Cassidy at Porter Scott). Along with the prevailing case law, what matters most here is the actual agreement between the employer and the employee union and/or the polices & practices of the employer which have been issued/adopted/used:

Here are the basics for the FLSA law applicable to the use of CTO:

1) The specific part of the FLSA statute which addresses the use of CTO is at 29 U.S.C. section 207(o)(5), and this statute states: “An employee of a public agency which is a State, political subdivision of a State, or an interstate governmental agency-- (A) who has accrued compensatory time off authorized to be provided under paragraph (1), and (B) who has requested the use of such compensatory time, shall be permitted by the employee’s employer to use such time within a reasonable period after making the request if the use of the compensatory time does not unduly disrupt the operations of the public agency.” (emphasis added). THIS IS WHAT gives employees the idea the employer must grant their CTO requests for specific dates, as long as use of CTO on requested dates does not “unduly disrupt” the operations of the employer.
2) Despite the “if the use of the compensatory time does not unduly disrupt the operations of the public agency” language in the statute, however, case law interpreting the FLSA does not hold that specific dates requested must be granted. Rather, case law and specific FLSA regulations allow and encourage unions and public employers to collectively bargain to reach agreements on what is reasonable regarding requests for use of CTO and the grant or denial of such requests. Specifically in the Ninth Circuit, the controlling case is Collins v. Lobdell (1999) 188 F.3d 1124, 1130 which states “Although employees have a right to use comp time when it would not unduly disrupt the public employers business, the FLSA does not give employees the right of absolute control over the use of comp time. Rather, the legislative history suggests that employers and employees are required to negotiate and reach agreements over the use and preservation of comp time”.
3) More recently a Ninth Circuit case in which our competitor Mastagni lost at the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal is Mortensen v. County of Sacramento (2004 C.A. 9) 368 F.3d 1082, 1090-1091 In this case the Court held that a public employer has a ‘reasonable period of time’ from when an employee requests use of CTO to when the requested use is granted by the employer, and held in this particular case that the FLSA does not require the employer to grant use of CTO on the exact date requested by the employee “We conclude that the text of § 207(o)(5) unambiguously states that once an employee requests the use of CTO, the employer has a reasonable period of time to allow the employee to use accrued time. Because the statutory language is unambiguous, we need not defer to the regulations and opinion letter.” THEN the Court also interpreted what constitutes a ‘reasonable period of time’ by looking at the regulation at 29 C.F.R. § 553.25 and found that “the county is not in violation of the FLSA unless it fails to follow its leave book policy or refuses to grant the use of CTO within one year of a request.” THEREFORE, an employer must follow their own agreed upon or adopted policies & practices, but once that is done, use of CTO simply must be granted within one year of the request. Mr. Mortensen and Mastagni were trying to have the Ninth Circuit hold that an employee’s request for use of CTO on a specific date must be honored unless use of the CTO on such date would unduly disrupt the operations of the employer - - but the 9th Circuit said “no,” unless the employer has agreed to this with the employee union, the employer simply must grant the use of requested CTO within one year of the date of the request.
4) For reference, the regulations interpreting the CTO section of the FLSA statute are at 29 C.F.R. section 553.25 (interpreting ‘reasonable period of time’ and ‘unduly disrupt’). A different regulation emphasizes that the public employer and the employee union should agree to the terms under which CTO is used; that regulation is at 29 C.F.R. section 553.23.
5) Recently one of the Labor Relations publications summarizes a Chicago case, Heitmann v. Chicago, which implied a victory for employees regarding the request and use of CTO. Some of our clients saw this that thought, ‘see, use of CTO on specific dates must be allowed by the employer.’ First, this case is from a federal District Court in Illinois, so it does not have controlling effect in the Ninth Circuit or in California, but is rather a point of reference. Also it is not a formally published decision, so it is not case law which can be cited in Court. As a non-citable point of reference, the case held that the Chicago police department must grant police officers’ requests for compensatory time off on a specific date, even if granting the leave requires it to pay overtime to replacement personnel, unless the department’s operations would be unduly disrupted. But the facts of that case and the agreement between the police Department and the employee union is what led to that decision.

In sum, you have to look at provisions regarding requests for use of CTO in the MOU between the employer and employee union, as well as the policies & practices of the employer regarding granting use of CTO, and after that consider the ‘reasonable period’ and ‘unduly disrupt’ factors. IF SUCH MOU PROVISIONS and/or employer POLICIES or PRACTICES do not establish a right to use CTO on specific dates (provided enough notice is given for the request to use CTO on such dates), THEN THE FLSA law itself merely requires that an employer grant use of CTO within one year of the request. Yes, believe it or not, this is the case. Ask David Mastagni.

Lastly, the only ‘black and white’ issues regarding CTO under the FLSA is that CTO must be accrued at 1.5 times the hours worked (which qualify as overtime hours under the FLSA) - - not on an hour-for-hour basis - - and that there are limits as to how much CTO can be accrued before overtime pay must be issued. ‘Overtime hours’ under the FLSA are hours above 40.0 per week, OR for peace officer and fire employers which have adopted the 7k exemption, are hours above 171 actual hours worked (do not count sick time, vacation, CTO used, holidays, etc.) in a 28 day period for peace officers and above 212 hours in a 28 day period for fire personnel. CTO never used to be allowed at all under the FLSA, but evolved as allowable over time.

(Gary Goyette is an Attorney with Goyette and Associates)

Shasta County General Unit Declares Impasse

2008-06-03T23:30:00Z

The Shasta County General Unit Bargaining Team met with the County on May 28th and asked if the County would improve upon its last offer for a 26 month contract with a non-retroactive 1.5% increase the first year and 1% increase the second year. This offer had previously been rejected by a membership vote.

The County representative stated that the County was absolutely not going to improve its offer, despite our previous rejection.

Therefore, the UPEC Bargaining Team declared that we have reached an impasse in negotiations. Note: Impasse is defined as a point in negotiations where additional meetings would be pointless as one side or the other has dug in their heels and will not budge. The County is not budging from its 1.5%, 1.0% proposal so we are by definition at an impasse.

In conformance with County Impasse Rules (Resolution No. 97-154 on the Personnel Department web page) we are required to submit a written request for an impasse meeting along with a statement of our position on all issues that remain in dispute (Impasse Position).

We have scheduled a membership meeting for Monday, June 9th at 5:30 pm in order to vote to confirm an Impasse Position. A discussion of all open items wil be held before a final vote is taken. In addition to voting on an impasse position, we will accept volunteers to form an Impasse Committee. The Impasse Committee will be responsible for developing tactics to convince the County to increase its offer so that we can settle a reasonable contract.

Chief Negotiator Steve Allen has scheduled an Impasse Meeting with the County for June 12th at 9:30 am. The purpose of the Impasse Meeting is to make one last effort to settle an agreement and, failing that, to agree to an impasse procedure. The procedure typically used is mediation, which requires the State of California to appoint a mediator to come to Redding to meet with both sides to attempt to “mediate” by persuasion a settlement. The schedule of mediation meetings is set by the mediator. During mediation the Union can engage in pressure tactics developed by the Impasse Committee.

Stay tuned for updates as this dispute develops.

Coleman Fish Hatchery Employees to get AWS Schedule

2008-06-03T23:52:00Z

Recently, Chief Steward Ralph Winstead was able to win the establishment of Alternate Work Schedules for Fish Culturalists at CNFH between Memorial Day and Labor Day. The new schedule, allowing employees to get one additional day off every other week by adding an extra half hour to the regular workday during those summer months, will be a very welcome change for employees who have long asked for some form of alternate work schedule only to have those requests rebuffed as impractical. We want to congratulate Mr. Winstead on his efforts to improve the working conditions at CNFH and on his success in establishing 9/80 schedules for the first time for the affected employees.