State of California (Department of Corrections) (PERB 1381S)

STATE 	OF 	CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF 	THE
PUBLIC 	EMPLOYMENT 	RELATIONS 	BOARD
e
CALIFORNIA STATE 	EMPLOYEES
ASSOCIATION,
Charging 	Party,
v.
STATE 	OF 	CALIFORNIA 	(DEPARTMENT
OF 	CORRECTIONS),
Respondent.
)
)
) 	Case No. 	SA-CE-1181-S
PERB Decision No. 	1381-S
April 	25, 	2000
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Appearances: 	Michael D. 	Hersh, 	Attorney, 	for California State
Employees Association; 	State of 	California 	(Department 	of
Personnel Administration) 	by Paul M. 	Starkey, 	Labor Relations
Counsel, 	for State of California 	(Department of Corrections).
Before Dyer, 	Amador and Baker, 	Members.
DECISION
AMADOR, 	Member: 	This 	case comes before the Public
Employment 	Relations 	Board 	(PERB or Board) 	on exceptions 	filed by
the State of California 	(Department of Corrections) 	(State) 	to an
administrative 	law judge's 	(ALJ) 	proposed decision 	(attached).
In the proposed decision, 	the ALJ 	found that 	the 	State violated
section 3519(a), 	(b) 	and 	(c) 	of the Ralph C. 	Dills Act 	(Dills
Act)1 when it eliminated the Saturday educational 	officer at 	the
1The Dills 	Act 	is 	codified at 	Government 	Code 	section 	3512
et 	seq. 	Unless 	otherwise 	indicated, 	all 	statutory references
herein are to the Government Code. 	Section 3519 	states, 	in
pertinent part:
It 	shall 	be unlawful 	for the 	state 	to do any
of 	the following:
(a) 	Impose or threaten to 	impose 	reprisals
on employees, 	to discriminate or threaten to

California State Prison, 	Corcoran 	(Corcoran), 	thereby increasing
security 	risks 	for 	certain 	California 	State 	Employees 	Association
(CSEA) 	members employed at Corcoran.
discriminate against 	employees, 	or otherwise
to interfere with, 	restrain, 	or coerce
employees because 	of 	their exercise 	of 	rights
guaranteed by this 	chapter. 	For purposes 	of
this subdivision, 	"employee" 	includes an
applicant 	for employment 	or reemployment.
(b) 	Deny to employee organizations 	rights
guaranteed 	to 	them by 	this 	chapter.
(c) 	Refuse or fail 	to meet and confer in
good 	faith with a 	recognized 	employee
organization.
The 	Board has 	reviewed the 	entire 	record, 	including
the proposed decision, 	the State's 	exceptions 	and CSEA's
response. 	The Board finds 	the ALJ's 	findings of 	fact and
conclusions 	of 	law to be 	free 	of 	prejudicial 	error and adopts
them as 	the 	decision of 	the Board 	itself 	consistent 	with 	the
following 	discussion.
DISCUSSION
The 	State 	filed a brief 	statement 	of 	exceptions 	to 	the ALJ's
proposed decision, 	and CSEA responded. 	In its 	exceptions, 	the
State asserts 	that 	the proposed decision is based, 	at 	least 	in
part, 	on unlawful, 	discriminatory criteria. 	Specifically, 	it
excepts 	to references 	in the proposed decision to 	the age, 	gender
and other physical 	characteristics 	of 	library workers.
The 	State argues 	that 	the ALJ's 	reference 	to 	such
characteristics 	indicates 	that 	his 	ultimate 	finding 	of 	fact
(i.e., 	that 	there had been a diminution of 	safety of 	library
22

workers) 	was based on unlawful 	criteria 	that are unsupported by
the 	record. 	The State requests 	that 	those portions 	of 	the
opinion be 	struck 	from the 	Board's 	consideration and 	that 	the
decision be 	reviewed 	for 	correctness 	without 	its 	"stereotypical
underpinnings."
We 	have 	reviewed 	the 	proposed decision and we 	are 	not
persuaded that 	the proposed decision's 	physical 	descriptions 	of
the 	library workers 	had an 	improper 	influence 	on 	the ALJ's
analysis 	or conclusions. 	However, 	we emphasize that those
descriptions played no part 	in our analysis 	of 	this 	case. 	In
conclusion, 	we affirm the ALJ's 	finding of a violation, 	but we
expressly note 	that 	any 	reference 	in 	the proposed decision 	to
physical 	characteristics 	of 	any employees 	are 	not 	to be 	deemed as
part 	of 	the Board's 	rationale 	in reaching 	this 	decision.
ORDER
Based on the 	foregoing 	findings 	of 	fact, 	conclusions 	of 	law,
and the 	entire 	record in this 	case, 	it 	is 	found that 	the State
of California 	(Department 	of 	Corrections) 	(State) 	violated the
Ralph C. 	Dills Act 	(Dills Act), 	Government Code section 3519(a),
(b) 	and 	(c). 	Therefore, 	it is hereby ORDERED that the State, 	its
administrators 	and 	representatives 	shall:
A. 	CEASE AND DESIST 	FROM:
1. 	Refusing 	to meet and confer 	in good 	faith with 	its
employees' 	recognized organization, 	the California State
Employees Association 	(CSEA), 	regarding the effects upon the
33

safety of 	library workers 	of 	its 	staffing 	decision at 	the
California State Prison, 	Corcoran 	(Corcoran).
2. 	Denying to 	its 	employees 	the 	right 	of
representation when 	it 	refused 	to meet 	and confer 	in good 	faith
on the 	subject 	referenced 	in paragraph 	1 	above.
3. 	Denying to CSEA the 	right 	to represent 	its members
in the meet and confer process 	referenced 	in paragraph 	1 	above.
B. 	TAKE 	THE 	FOLLOWING AFFIRMATIVE ACTIONS 	DESIGNED TO
EFFECTUATE THE 	POLICIES 	OF THE DILLS ACT.
1. 	Maintain custody staffing 	in all 	Corcoran
libraries at 	the 	level 	in existence prior 	to September 	1998 	until
a modification 	to 	such 	level 	is 	negotiated with and agreed 	to by
CSEA or until 	such 	time as 	the parties 	have 	reached an 	impasse 	in
negotiations 	and have 	completed 	the 	impasse procedures 	set 	forth
in Dills Act 	section 3518.
2. 	Within ten 	(10) 	working days 	following the date
this 	decision 	is no longer subject 	to appeal, 	post at all
Corcoran offices, 	where notices 	are 	customarily placed for all
employees, 	copies 	of 	the notice attached hereto as an Appendix.
This 	notice must 	be 	signed by an authorized agent 	of 	the 	State,
indicating that 	it 	will 	comply with the 	terms 	of 	this 	Order.
Such posting 	shall 	be maintained 	for a period of 	thirty 	(30)
consecutive workdays. 	Reasonable 	steps 	shall be 	taken to 	insure
that the notice 	is not reduced in size, 	altered, 	defaced or
covered by any 	other material.
3. 	Written notification of 	the actions 	taken to
comply with 	this 	Order shall 	be made 	to 	the 	Sacramento Regional
4

Director of 	the 	Public Employment 	Relations 	Board 	in accordance
with his 	instructions. 	Continue to report, 	in writing, 	to the
regional 	director 	thereafter as 	directed. 	All 	reports 	to the
regional 	director 	shall 	be 	concurrently 	served 	on 	CSEA.
It 	is 	further ordered that 	all 	other aspects 	of 	the 	charge
and complaint 	in Case No. 	SA-CE-1181-S 	are hereby DISMISSED.
Member Dyer and Member Baker 	joined 	in this 	Decision.
5
5

APPENDIX
NOTICE 	TO 	EMPLOYEES
POSTED 	BY ORDER OF 	THE
PUBLIC 	EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS 	BOARD
An Agency of 	the 	State of 	California
After a hearing 	in Unfair Practice Case No. 	SA-CE-1181-S,
California State Employees Association v. 	State 	of 	California
(Department 	of Corrections). 	in which all parties had the right
to participate, 	it has been found that 	the State of 	California
(Department of Corrections) 	violated the Ralph C. 	Dills Act
(Dills Act), Government Code section 3519(a), 	(b) 	and (c).
As 	a result 	of 	this 	conduct, 	we have been ordered to post
this Notice 	and we will:
A. 	CEASE AND DESIST 	FROM:
1. 	Refusing 	to meet 	and 	confer 	in good 	faith with 	its
employees' 	recognized organization, 	the California State
Employees Association 	(CSEA) , 	regarding the effects upon the
safety of 	library workers 	of 	its 	staffing decision at 	the
California State Prison, 	Corcoran 	(Corcoran).
2. 	Denying to 	its 	employees 	the right 	of
representation when 	it 	refused 	to meet 	and confer 	in good 	faith
on the 	subject 	referenced 	in paragraph 	1 	above.
3. 	Denying to CSEA the 	right 	to 	represent 	its members
in the meet 	and 	confer process 	referenced 	in paragraph 	1 	above.
B. 	TAKE THE 	FOLLOWING AFFIRMATIVE ACTIONS DESIGNED TO
EFFECTUATE THE 	POLICIES 	OF THE DILLS ACT.
Maintain 	custody 	staffing 	in all 	Corcoran 	libraries
at 	the 	level 	in existence prior to September 1998 	until 	a
modification to 	such 	level 	is 	negotiated with and agreed 	to by
CSEA or until 	such 	time as 	the parties 	have 	reached an 	impasse 	in
negotiations 	and have 	completed 	the 	impasse procedures 	set 	forth
in Dills Act 	section 3518.
Dated: 	STATE 	OF 	CALIFORNIA
(DEPARTMENT 	OF 	CORRECTIONS)
By: Authorized 	Agent
THIS 	IS AN OFFICIAL NOTICE. 	IT MUST REMAIN POSTED 	FOR AT LEAST
THIRTY 	(30) 	CONSECUTIVE WORKDAYS 	FROM THE DATE OF 	POSTING AND
MUST NOT BE REDUCED IN SIZE, 	DEFACED, 	ALTERED, 	OR COVERED WITH
ANY 	OTHER MATERIAL.

STATE 	OF 	CALIFORNIA
PUBLIC 	EMPLOYMENT 	RELATIONS 	BOARD
CALIFORNIA 	STATE 	EMPLOYEES
ASSOCIATION,
Charging 	Party,
v.
STATE 	OF 	CALIFORNIA 	(DEPARTMENT
OF 	CORRECTIONS),
Respondent.
)
)
)
) 	Unfair 	Practice
Case No. 	SA-CE-1181-S
PROPOSED DECISION
(9/29/99)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Appearances: 	Michael D. 	Hersh, 	Attorney, 	for California State
Employees Association; 	Paul 	Starkey, 	Labor Relations Counsel, 	for
State of 	California 	(Department 	of 	Corrections).
Before Allen R. 	Link, 	Administrative Law Judge.
INTRODUCTION
The 	California 	State 	Employees Association 	(CSEA) 	complains
of 	the 	elimination of 	the 	Saturday educational 	officer, 	the
correctional 	officer 	(CO) 	that 	patrols 	the building that 	houses
the library, 	at the California State Prison, 	Corcoran 	(Corcoran).
CSEA 	insists 	such 	elimination will 	greatly 	increase 	security
risks 	for its members, 	the library workers.1
The 	State 	of 	California 	(Department 	of 	Corrections) 	(CDC)
disagrees, 	stating that 	its 	decision does 	not 	increase 	such risks
to 	"a 	clear and present 	danger" 	level. 	CDC 	insists 	that 	this
"clear 	and present 	danger" 	standard was 	agreed 	to 	by the 	parties
in their memorandum of understanding 	(MOU). 	CDC points 	out 	that
all 	library workers have personal 	alarms, 	as well 	as 	access 	to
1The term 	"library worker", 	as used 	in this 	decision, 	refers
to persons 	in 	the 	classification of 	staff 	librarian 	and 	library
technical 	assistant 	(LTA). 	It 	does not 	include 	inmate 	library
aides.
A
~

alarms 	built 	into 	their work 	locations. 	In 	addition, 	CDC 	states
security 	will 	be 	increased 	by 	(1) 	a 	window being 	built 	between
the 	library 	and 	the 	inmate 	recreational 	yard 	(yard), 	and
(2) 	random 	semi-hourly 	library 	checks 	by 	roving 	custody
personnel.
PROCEDURAL 	HISTORY
On 	October 	14, 	1998, 	CSEA 	filed 	an unfair practice 	charge
and 	a 	request 	for 	injunctive 	relief 	with 	the 	Public 	Employment
Relations 	Board 	(PERB 	or 	Board) 	against 	CDC. 	The 	charge 	alleged
violations 	of 	the Ralph C. 	Dills Act 	(Dills A c t ) . 2
On October 	26, 	1998, 	the 	Office 	of 	the 	General 	Counsel 	of
PERB, 	after 	an 	investigation 	(1) 	issued 	a 	complaint 	against
CDC, 	alleging violations 	of 	subdivisions 	(a), 	(b) 	and 	(c) 	of
section 	3519,3 and 	(2) 	was 	given 	direction by 	the 	Board 	to
2The 	Dills 	Act 	is 	codified 	in 	the 	Government 	Code
(commencing with 	section 	3 5 1 2 ) . 	All 	section references, 	unless
otherwise 	noted, 	are 	to 	the 	Government 	Code.
S u b d i v i s i o n s 	(a), 	(b) 	and 	(c) 	of 	section 3519, 	in pertinent
part, 	state:
It 	shall 	be 	unlawful 	for 	the 	state 	to 	do 	any
of 	the 	following:
(a) 	Impose 	or 	threaten 	to 	impose 	reprisals
on 	employees, 	to 	discriminate 	or 	threaten 	to
discriminate 	against 	employees, 	or 	otherwise
to 	interfere with, 	restrain, 	or 	coerce
employees 	because 	of 	their 	exercise 	of 	rights
guaranteed 	by 	this 	chapter.
(b) 	Deny 	to 	employee 	organizations 	rights
guaranteed 	to 	them by 	this 	chapter.
(c) 	Refuse 	or 	fail 	to 	meet 	and 	confer 	in
good 	faith 	with 	a 	recognized 	employee
organization.
22

request 	injunctive 	relief 	against 	CDC 	in Superior Court. 	On
October 28, 	1998, 	CDC agreed to maintain the 	status quo ante
pending the outcome of this proceeding. 	On December 2, 	1998, 	a
conference 	was 	held 	in an unsuccessful 	attempt 	to 	settle 	the
matter. 	On November 16, 	1998, 	the respondent 	answered the
complaint 	denying 	all 	material 	allegations 	and 	asserting
affirmative 	defenses.
A 	formal 	hearing was 	held before 	the 	undersigned 	on
February 22, 	23 	and March 17, 	1999. 	At 	the conclusion of the
hearing, 	transcripts were prepared, 	briefs were 	filed and the
case was 	submitted 	for a proposed decision on August 	10, 	1999.
On February 23, 	1999, 	during the formal hearing, 	charging
party moved 	to 	amend 	the 	complaint 	to 	challenge 	the 	decision
itself, 	not 	just 	its 	effects. 	The motion was placed in abeyance,
pending 	the 	resolution of 	the 	entire matter.
FINDINGS 	OF 	FACT
Jurisdiction
The 	parties 	stipulated 	to 	the 	charging party being 	a
recognized 	employee 	organization 	and 	the 	respondent 	being 	the
state employer, 	within the meaning of 	the Dills Act.
History
CSEA 	is 	the 	recognized 	employee 	organization 	for 	State
Bargaining Units 	3 	and 4, 	which include 	library workers. 	The
parties' 	MOU expired on June 	30, 	1995. 	A successor agreement was
negotiated for the period of April 	1 	through June 	30, 	1999, 	which
has 	since 	been extended.
W
	3

Corcoran 	is 	one 	of 	thirty-three prisons 	CDC maintains
throughout 	the 	state. 	The 	inmates 	in these prisons 	are
categorized 	according 	to 	their perceived 	level 	of 	danger 	to
others. 	Level 	IV inmates 	have 	a much higher level 	of 	danger than
Level 	I 	inmates. 	Corcoran has all 	levels of 	inmates. 	Within
Corcoran there are 	four yards, 	designated A, 	B, 	C and D.
Inmate Use 	of 	Libraries
Inmates have 	a 	legal 	right 	to 	access 	a 	law library. 	In each
of 	its yards, 	Corcoran has a 	library, 	which includes both legal
and leisure materials. 	The 	libraries 	are 	available 	to 	the
inmates 	at various 	times, 	but 	generally they are 	open Tuesday
through Friday, 	from 6 a.m. 	to 3 	p.m. 	The 	libraries on three
yards 	are open on Saturdays. 	This 	is necessary to accommodate
inmates 	who have 	weekday education or work 	assignments.
Each of 	these 	libraries 	is 	run by library workers, 	who are
assisted by 	inmate 	aides. 	General 	population 	inmates 	are
permitted 	to use 	the 	libraries 	under 	controlled 	circumstances.
However, 	there 	is 	no physical 	or structural 	restraints between
the 	inmates 	and 	the 	library workers.
Respondent's 	Decision 	to 	Eliminate 	the 	Educational 	Patrol 	Officer
On or about 	September 11, 	1998, 	the California Correctional
Peace Officers Association 	(CCPOA), 	the 	recognized representative
of 	COs, 	reached an 	agreement 	with Corcoran's 	administration
regarding 	an 	"institutional 	vacancy plan." 	The 	agreement
designated thirteen positions 	as 	"vacancies," 	one 	of 	which was
44

the 	educational 	officer on C yard, 	third watch, 	Tuesday through
Saturday.
CDC 	contends 	the 	elimination of 	this 	post 	was 	consistent
with 	the 	prior 	elimination of 	educational 	officer 	coverage 	on A
and B yards. 	However, 	despite 	this prior budgetary elimination,
COs 	continued to be 	directed to 	staff 	these posts 	until 	an audit
discovered the 	error. 	The 	educational 	officer on 	these 	two yards
was 	filled by COs 	that 	had been 	redirected 	from other posts.
When 	the 	administration 	and 	CCPOA 	reached 	agreement 	it 	was
understood 	the 	educational 	officers 	on 	all 	three 	yards 	would be
eliminated.
The 	elimination of 	these 	three posts 	was 	announced 	to 	the
library workers 	by Warden George 	M. 	Galaza 	on Education Training
Day at 	the 	end of 	September 	1998.
Educational 	Officer
Traditionally, 	an educational 	officer has 	been assigned 	to 	a
post 	that 	caused him/her 	to 	spend 	the 	entire 	shift 	in 	the
education building. 	His/her primary responsibility, 	as 	defined
in post 	orders, 	is 	"to provide direct 	supervision of 	inmates 	and
be 	available 	to 	establish and maintain open 	lines 	of
communication 	(between staff 	and inmates)." 	Other guidelines 	for
educational 	officers 	included:
[I]n 	the 	event 	that 	a 	teacher must 	leave 	the
classroom or 	the 	librarian 	leave 	the 	library
for a 	short period of 	time, 	the 	officer(s)
will 	be 	asked to 	supervise 	the 	area 	and
maintain control.
55

During 	the 	week 	each 	educational 	officer 	is 	either
patrolling 	the 	corridor or 	seated 	in his/her office 	which 	is
located approximately 3 0 	feet 	from the 	library door. 	On
Saturday, 	this 	officer would usually be 	inside 	the 	library as
that 	is 	the 	only program operating 	that 	day.
On 	each yard 	six officers, 	including 	the 	educational
officer, 	are typically available, 	Monday through Friday, 	for
emergency 	responses.
CSEA's 	Response 	to 	CDC's 	Elimination of 	Educational 	Officer
On October 7, 	1998, 	John Veen 	(Veen), 	CSEA field
representative, 	and Raymond VanZant 	(VanZant), 	a CSEA activist
and a 	Corcoran teacher, 	met 	with Corcoran Employee 	Relations
Officer Jeannie Nichols 	(Nichols), 	to discuss 	the announced
termination of 	the 	educational 	officers. 	On October 8, 	1998,
Dava Nunes 	(Nunes), 	another CSEA activist 	and a Corcoran LTA,
filed a 	grievance 	complaining of 	a unilateral 	change 	in working
conditions, 	i.e., 	a diminution of 	safety in the work place. 	The
grievance 	complained about 	CDC's 	failure 	to meet 	and 	confer over
such 	change. 	Nunes 	never received a written response 	to her
grievance.
On October 	9 Veen wrote 	to Nichols, 	stating that 	the planned
elimination of 	the 	educational 	officers 	put 	the 	librarian
workers' 	safety at 	risk. 	He 	informed her that 	because of 	this,
CSEA 	intended 	to 	file 	a 	charge 	with 	PERB 	and 	seek 	injunctive
relief, 	unless 	the 	current 	level 	of 	security was maintained.
66

On October 14, 	1998, 	when the parties met 	to discuss the
matter, 	Nichols 	read 	from a memorandum that 	stated 	that 	Corcoran
was 	going 	to 	immediately eliminate 	the 	educational 	officer posts,
but 	only on Saturday. 	She 	indicated 	that 	"roving 	coverage" 	by
custody 	staff 	would be 	provided 	at 	a 	minimum level 	of 	twice 	an
hour. 	She 	also 	stated that 	a work order had been 	signed to put
windows 	in the 	library walls 	abutting 	the yards. 	The memorandum
continued: 	"If 	you 	still 	feel 	these precautionary 	security
measures 	are 	inadequate 	for your personal 	protection, 	then the
alternative 	is 	to be 	reassigned to the 	SHU[4] law libraries 	on
facilities 	IV-A 	and 	IV-B. 	. . . "
VanZant 	requested 	that 	the 	library workers 	be 	permitted 	to
use vacation time 	in lieu of working the next 	day, 	Saturday, 	due
to 	their 	safety concerns. 	Permission was 	granted and Nunes,
VanZant, 	and Sherry Parks 	(Parks), 	a LTA assigned to C yard, 	all
utilized vacation 	time 	that 	day.
On October 19, 	1998, 	Veen wrote to Corcoran's
administration, 	demanding to meet 	and confer over 	the 	effects 	of
this 	staffing change. 	In early December, 	by mutual 	agreement,
Nunes' 	October 8 grievance was placed in abeyance, 	pending the
outcome 	of 	this 	proceeding.
4SHU refers 	to 	security housing units. 	In this unit 	an
inmate 	is not permitted to 	leave his 	cell 	unless 	he 	is
accompanied by a CO, 	on a one-to-one basis.
77

Libraries' 	Physical Description
The 	libraries 	are 	located 	in 	education buildings. 	Entrance
to 	this 	building 	is 	through either of 	two 	locked doors 	off 	the
yard. 	The yard lieutenant, 	sergeant, 	all COs, 	teachers and the
library workers 	all 	have 	a key to 	these 	doors.
The 	education buildings 	are 	all 	constructed of 	cinder block
and each abuts 	a yard.5 In each building 	there 	is 	a 	corridor 	in
the 	shape of 	an inverted, 	but 	squared, 	"U" 	with each end leading
to a 	locked door to 	the yard. 	The 	libraries have 	two or three
large windows 	that 	run the width of 	the 	rooms. 	These windows
look onto the 	corridor which starts 	at 	the yard door, 	passes 	the
library and chapel, 	and proceeds past 	classrooms. 	Then 	it 	turns
left 	and continues past 	glassed 	inmate 	restrooms. 	Once 	it passes
the 	restrooms, 	it 	again turns 	left 	and proceeds past 	the 	offices
of 	the yard's program office, 	which houses 	the yard's 	supervisory
and clerical 	staff,6 ending at 	another yard door. 	The 	length of
the 	corridor 	from each of 	the yard doors 	to 	the 	back corridor 	is
46 	feet. 	The 	length of the back corridor is 55 	feet. 	The entire
length of 	the 	corridor is 	147 	feet.
There 	is 	little 	reason 	for 	the 	educational 	officer 	to patrol
the 	46 	feet 	of 	the 	corridor abutting 	the program office. 	These
offices 	house 	custody staff 	and 	any 	inmates 	in 	that 	area 	are
5The 	undersigned, 	along with the 	two 	attorneys 	and other
interested persons 	toured 	some 	Corcoran 	libraries. 	There were
assurances 	by 	all 	parties 	that 	the 	toured buildings 	were
representative 	of 	all 	of 	the 	Corcoran libraries.
6There 	is 	no 	requirement 	that 	this 	office 	be maintained by
any minimum level 	of 	custody personnel 	at 	any time.
88

under 	the 	direct 	supervision of 	such 	staff. 	The 	educational
officer's 	"beat" 	consists 	of 	the 	101 	feet 	that 	constitute 	the
other two 	legs 	of 	the 	corridor. 	Even within these 	101 	feet,
there 	is 	a natural 	concentration on the 	46 	feet 	just 	outside 	of
the 	library, 	classrooms and chapel. 	Even if the 	two legs of 	the
corridor are 	taken into consideration, 	on average, 	the
educational 	officer 	is 	less 	than 	50 	feet 	away 	from the 	library
door.
There 	are 	no windows 	between the 	library and the yard. 	It
is possible 	for a CO to 	look through a 	slit 	window7 in one 	of 	the
yard doors 	and see 	a portion of 	the 	library, 	if 	the 	lighting
conditions are 	favorable. 	However, 	in order to do this 	it would
be 	necessary 	for the 	CO 	to press 	his/her 	face 	against 	this 	narrow
window.
Efficacy 	of 	Available 	Alarms
The 	educational 	officer 	can respond 	in 	seconds 	to 	a problem
in the 	library. 	However, 	yard officers 	are 	not 	assigned to 	a
specific part 	of 	the yard. 	Therefore, 	they could be 	just 	outside
the 	education building or more 	than 	one 	hundred yards 	away.
When a 	librarian activates 	the 	alarm, 	it 	results 	in a blue
light 	flashing, 	as well 	as 	an audible alarm, 	on top of 	the
7The window is 	tall, 	but very narrow. 	Its purpose 	is not 	to
facilitate 	a person on the 	outside 	looking 	in, 	but 	rather to
allow a person 	inside 	to 	see who 	is 	immediately outside 	of 	the
door prior 	to his/her opening 	the 	door.
99

building.8 However, 	it 	does 	not 	specify which part 	of 	the
building has 	activated the 	alarm. 	Therefore, 	a 	CO responding
from the yard, 	depending on the 	door accessed, 	could be 	required
to check the program office, 	storage 	room, 	inmate 	restrooms,
classrooms 	and 	chapel 	before 	s/he 	reached 	the 	library where 	the
alarm was 	activated.
There 	are 	three 	types 	of 	alarms 	available 	to 	library
employees: 	(1) 	personal 	electronic alarms9 which trigger the
education building roof 	alarm; 	(2) 	an 	"off-hook" 	alarm which
signals 	the prison's 	central 	security control 	if 	the 	library
telephone 	is 	off-hook more 	than ten to 	thirty seconds; 	and
(3) 	personal whistles. 	In addition, 	central 	security can become
aware 	of 	a problem by the 	telephone 	dialing of 	"222."
The 	personal 	electronic 	alarms 	have 	a high 	rate 	of 	failure
and do not 	activate 	in 	"dead spots" 	in the building. 	Both the
personal 	electronic 	alarm and 	the 	whistles 	require 	freedom of 	arm
movement. 	Nunes 	and VanZant 	conducted a test 	of 	the whistles.
They 	learned 	that 	a whistle 	blown 	in 	the 	education building 	is
not 	audible 	to the yard COs. 	Parks 	does not believe 	the whistle
is audible 	in the program office, 	"if 	the door is 	closed."10
8The 	alarm also 	signals 	Corcoran's 	central 	security control,
which has 	the 	capability of 	alerting 	other 	custody personnel 	by
radio.
9This 	alarm looks 	like 	a garage door opener. 	It 	is worn on
an employee's 	belt.
10It 	was 	unclear 	to which door 	the witness 	was 	referring.
10

Parks 	has been an LTA for ten years. 	For 	the 	first 	four or
five years 	the 	library workers 	were 	not 	issued personal 	alarms.
Since receiving such a device, 	she has used it 	three 	times. 	Once
she was 	forced to use 	it 	because 	an 	incident 	occurred when 	the
educational 	officer was 	not 	available. 	In another 	instance 	a
library 	inmate 	aide 	threatened 	to 	kill 	her because 	she 	criticized
his 	attire, 	stating 	it was 	inappropriate 	for his work assignment.
A lieutenant 	in the A yard, 	Gary Honest 	(Lt. 	Honest), 	stated
in 	the 	twenty months 	he 	has 	been 	in that 	assignment's 	third watch
he 	has 	responded 	to 	alarms 	in the 	education building 	four or 	five
times.
Security 	Procedures 	In 	and Around 	the 	Library
Inmates 	are 	escorted to 	and 	from the 	library. 	Custody
officers 	make 	random pat 	downs 	as 	inmates 	enter or 	leave 	the
building. 	One educational 	officer, 	Anna Garcia 	(CO Garcia),
would pat 	down 	every 	inmate 	before 	she 	let 	him 	into 	the 	building.
At most, 	thirteen inmates, 	which includes 	three 	inmate workers,
are 	permitted 	in the 	library at 	one 	time.11
11Library workers 	are 	given no 	information 	regarding 	the
crimes 	for which 	specific 	inmates 	were 	incarcerated. 	However,
CDC 	is 	sufficiently 	concerned 	about 	inmates 	"with histories 	of
specific 	sex offenses" 	to 	the 	extent 	they are 	given a 	"R" 	suffix
to 	their prison identification number. 	In addition, 	CDC has
determined, 	in its operating manual, 	section 53130, 	such inmates
shall 	not 	be permitted to work
in areas 	where 	they could have 	routine
contact 	with the public 	or be 	a 	threat 	to 	an
isolated 	staff 	member. 	[Emphasis 	added.] -
However, 	library workers 	are not 	aware of 	"R" 	designated
inmate 	status. 	Nor are 	the other yard officers, 	including
lieutenants 	and sergeants 	aware of 	such designations, 	unless 	an
11

inmate 	is moved to a 	segregated housing unit, 	pursuant 	to the
filing of 	a 	rules violation against 	him.
Preference 	is given to 	inmates 	desiring law book access.
Leisure 	reading use 	is 	a 	secondary priority. 	There 	is 	a 	two-hour
limit 	for any one 	inmate 	library visit. 	Law books 	are 	located 	in
a 	restricted 	"out 	of 	bounds" 	area behind 	the desks 	of 	inmate
aides 	and 	library workers. 	Parks 	stated 	that 	inmates 	often 	cross
into the 	out-of-bounds area. 	When this occurs, 	she 	tells 	them to
move. 	Often they do, 	but 	if 	they do not 	she explains 	they have
to obey the 	rules 	or 	leave 	the 	library. 	If 	they still 	do not
move, 	she 	calls 	the educational 	officer for assistance. 	Inmates
wanting 	legal 	materials 	must 	approach 	an 	inmate 	aide 	one 	at 	a
time. 	Staff 	have 	been 	instructed to position 	their desks 	so 	as
to have 	unobstructed access 	to 	the 	door 	in 	case 	of 	an emergency
and to 	leave 	the 	library if 	there 	is 	an altercation, 	or upon
sounding 	or 	hearing 	an alarm.
The 	library workers 	themselves 	control 	the 	library
environment12 and use 	"progressive 	discipline" 	with 	inmates 	that
act out 	or 	fail 	to 	follow rules. 	Serious 	incidents 	by 	inmates
against 	library workers 	have been the 	exception, 	not 	the 	rule.
Alice Roberts 	(Roberts), 	supervisor of Corcoran's
correctional 	education programs 	since May 	1990 	is 	aware 	of 	only
one 	incident 	of physical 	assault 	against 	a 	library worker 	since
12Library workers 	receive 	forty hours 	of 	prison 	training upon
their 	initial 	employment. 	Each 	subsequent 	year 	they receive 	an
additional 	forty such hours. 	The 	topics 	covered 	in this 	training
include disturbance control, 	escape procedures, 	inmate-staff
relations, 	as well 	as 	other institutional policies 	and
procedures.
12

she has been in that position. 	In that 	case, 	an inmate 	in a
segregated housing unit, 	when permitted 	to go 	to 	the 	library 	in a
'
supervised visit, 	spit at 	a library worker. 	Over the years, 	the
number of 	alarm activations 	by 	library workers 	has 	been minimal.
Roberts 	also 	testified 	that 	the 	library on B yard had been
located 	at 	the 	far 	end of 	the 	education building's 	back 	corridor
when she 	first 	assumed her duties. 	When asked why 	she 	changed
the 	location to a 	spot next 	to 	the yard door, 	she 	testified:
A. 	Because of 	security concerns 	that 	I 	had
for the 	staff 	that 	were 	working 	in the
library at 	that 	time, 	particularly 	. . . 	we
did 	have 	evening 	library 	and 	the 	library
staff was 	in there 	in the back area 	on their
own, 	the 	officer would often be up at 	the
front 	door, 	and there was no way of 	seeing
what was going on back in that 	area. 	They
were 	totally isolated 	in that 	area. 	I 	mean
they could not 	be 	seen 	in any way 	shape 	or
form.
CO 	Garcia worked as 	an 	educational 	officer 	for 	approximately
one year, 	not more than five years 	ago. 	She 	said it would only
take 	her 	"seconds" 	to 	respond to a problem 	in the 	library when
she was 	assigned to 	that post. 	She 	remembers 	two assaults 	on
teaching 	staff 	that 	occurred while 	she was 	assigned 	to 	that 	post.
CO Garcia, 	during her educational 	officer tenure, 	observed
between 	five 	and 	ten 	incidents 	in which 	inmates 	were 	either
fighting 	or 	throwing 	things. 	She mentioned one 	incident 	in which
glass was broken. 	In searching inmates while 	in that post, 	she
frequently 	found weapons 	and other 	contraband. 	The 	contraband
took the 	form of metal 	pieces 	from tables, 	weapons 	in books 	and
broken glass 	from windows.
13

CO Garcia 	said, 	when discussing 	the 	impact 	of 	the
educational 	officer on 	inmate behavior, 	testified as 	follows:
Q. 	Can you describe 	how your presence 	would
make 	a difference 	to 	incidents 	arising?
A. 	Anything 	that 	seemed abnormal, 	if 	there
was 	a 	problem 	in 	the 	classroom between
inmates, 	or if 	I 	felt 	that 	there was a
problem 	in 	that 	classroom, 	that's 	where 	I'd
be 	standing watching most 	of 	the 	time.
Q. 	I 	thought 	your testimony was 	that your
presence 	itself 	was 	some 	sort 	of 	deterrent?
A. 	Yes, 	it is.
Nunes 	has 	worked 	in Corcoran 	libraries 	for more 	than 	eight
years. 	She 	has 	never needed 	to use 	either her personal 	alarm or
the 	telephone 	alarm system. 	She 	has 	instead 	summoned 	the 	nearby
educational 	officer, 	on approximately ten occasions, 	to control
an 	inmate. 	She 	has prepared 	four or 	five 	inmate 	incident
reports, 	Form 115, 	and 10 to 15 counseling reports, 	Form 128.13
CO Thomas 	Benson 	(Benson) 	worked as 	an educational 	officer
at 	both 	Corcoran 	and 	San Quentin on holiday 	relief 	on numerous
occasions. 	He 	stated that 	when he 	had to 	leave 	early 	for any
reason 	"the program 	shut 	down because 	they wanted 	custodial 	staff
there."
Lt. 	Honest 	insists 	the program office 	in the 	education
building 	is 	never 	left 	unsupervised unless 	an 	alarm has 	been
sounded. 	Under 	those 	circumstances 	all 	inmates 	in the program
13Form 115 	has 	the potential 	of 	impacting 	an 	inmate's 	"good
time" 	credits, 	and consequently his 	incarceration time. 	Form 12 8
is 	a lower level 	incident 	report, 	with no 	"good time" 	credit
impact. 	A Form 	128 	could be 	quasi-disciplinary, 	instructional 	or
even laudatory, 	in nature.
14

office 	are 	moved 	to 	the 	yard and 	are 	placed 	in a prone 	position
pending 	termination of 	the 	alarm situation.
However, 	VanZant went 	to 	the program office 	in yard A on the
morning of 	the 	third day of 	the hearing 	in this 	case, 	March 	17,
1999. 	When he 	arrived he 	found four 	inmates, 	the yard's 	office
assistant, 	and no custody staff. 	When he 	left 	the 	office one
minute 	later, 	he 	ran 	into an S&E CO.14 This 	has 	happened twice
in the past. 	On those 	occasions 	he 	spent 	approximately three 	to
four minutes 	in 	the program office. 	On both occasions 	the yard's
office 	assistant 	was present.
In addition, 	Nunes 	states 	she has phoned the yard
supervisory office 	on 	several 	occasions 	and 	received no 	answer.
Lt. 	Honest, 	when discussing the procedure of moving 	inmates
from A yard to 	the 	receiving and release 	(R and R) 	unit, 	stated
that 	if more 	than ten inmates were moved at 	one 	time, 	two 	S&E
officers 	were 	assigned escort 	duty.
Parks 	explained the yard emergency procedure. 	When a LTA
hits 	his/her 	alarm a visual 	and auditory alarm on 	top 	of 	the
education building 	is 	activated. 	The 	inmates 	immediately 	lie
prone 	on 	the 	ground. 	The 	tower CO oversees 	the 	yard and all
available personnel 	go 	to 	the 	source 	of 	the 	emergency. 	This
could occur 	six times 	a day or not 	at 	all. 	In the 	event 	of 	an
alarm, 	the 	educational 	officer 	is 	to 	stay in the building and
14S&E CO refers 	to a 	search and escort 	CO. 	These 	COs 	are
assigned 	to 	the yard 	supervisory staff 	to 	transport 	inmates, 	as
well 	as paperwork, 	throughout 	the prison. 	They are also
available 	to 	respond to 	alarms 	and other emergencies.
15

make 	sure all 	the 	inmates 	are 	secured, 	i.e., 	not 	a danger to 	free
staff 	or 	each other. 	The 	tower CO has 	no visual 	contact 	with the
inside 	of 	the 	education building.
Nunes 	also provided a map of 	B yard. 	She 	has 	been 	told by
COs 	that 	most 	yard disturbances 	occur 	in a portion of 	the 	yard
designated as 	Section 7. 	This 	section 	is 	in the part 	of 	the yard
that 	is 	the 	furthest 	from the 	library. 	The 	COs 	told her 	that 	the
reason 	for 	this 	area's 	high degree 	of 	incidents 	is 	due 	to 	either
a 	blind 	spot 	or a high number of 	shadows.
There 	are 	other 	instances 	in the prison 	in which non-custody
personnel are 	left with inmates, 	i.e., 	clothing room, 	yard
program offices, 	canteen, 	laundry room and 	IST 	(In Service
Training). 	However this 	is often a situation where 	the 	inmates
are working 	aides 	to non-custody staff 	in a 	secured area, 	i.e.,
behind a window 	in a 	locked work area. 	This would be 	analogous
to 	a 	library worker being 	locked 	in 	the 	library with his/her
inmate aides.
MOU 	Safety 	Provisions
All 	library workers 	have 	job 	duty 	statements 	which 	require
them to perform duties 	consistent 	with 	the 	prison 	environment,
i.e., 	maintaining 	order 	and 	supervising 	the 	conduct 	of 	general
population inmates 	and inmate 	aides, 	preventing escapes,
maintaining 	security of 	work 	areas 	and work materials 	and
inspecting 	for 	contraband.
Bargaining Units 	3 	and 4 	have MOU provisions 	relating 	to
health and 	safety. 	Both agreements 	have 	identical 	provisions
16

that 	state 	CDC 	"shall 	attempt 	to provide 	a 	safe 	work place 	for
State employees."
Unit 	3's MOU section 	10.1 (f) 	states 	that 	when an employee 	in
good 	faith believes 	s/he 	is 	required 	to work 	in 	a 	situation where
a 	"clear 	and present 	danger" 	exists, 	s/he 	may notify the
appropriate 	supervisor. 	If, 	after review, 	the union and
management 	disagree, 	the union may file 	a grievance 	alleging a
safety and health grievance. 	MOU section 	10.4.a. 	states 	safety
and 	health 	grievances
are 	not 	intended to 	include 	those 	hazards 	and
risks 	which are 	an ordinary characteristic 	of
the 	work 	or 	are 	reasonably 	associated with
performance 	of 	an 	employee's 	responsibilities
and job duties.
ISSUE
Did 	CDC's 	refusal 	to negotiate 	the 	safety effect 	of 	its
education building staffing decision violate subdivision 	(a), 	(b)
or 	(c) 	of 	section 3519?
CONCLUSIONS 	OF 	LAW
A unilateral 	modification 	in 	terms 	and 	conditions 	of
employment 	within the 	scope 	of 	employment 	is 	a per 	se 	refusal 	to
negotiate. 	(NLRB v. 	Katz 	(1962) 	369 U.S. 	736 	[50 LRRM 2177].)
PERB has 	long 	recognized this 	principle. 	(Pajaro Valley Unified
School District 	(1978) 	PERB Decision No. 	51; 	San Mateo County
Community College District 	(1979) 	PERB Decision No. 	94; 	and Grant
Joint Union High School District 	(1982) 	PERB Decision No. 	196
(Grant).)
17

Under subdivision 	(c) 	of 	section 3519, 	CDC 	is 	obligated to
meet 	and 	confer 	in good 	faith with 	an 	exclusive 	representative
about 	matters 	within the 	scope 	of 	representation.15 This 	section
precludes 	the 	state 	employer 	from making 	changes 	in 	the 	status
quo without 	giving notice 	of 	its 	actions 	to 	the 	appropriate
exclusive 	representative. 	(Anaheim City 	School 	District 	(1983)
PERB Decision No. 	364; 	Pittsburg Unified School 	District 	(1982)
PERB Decision No. 	199.) 	In addition, 	the 	alleged change must
have 	a 	generalized 	effect 	or 	continuing 	impact 	on 	terms 	and
conditions 	of 	employment. 	(Grant.)
PERB 	stated, 	on page 	53 	of 	Jefferson School 	District 	(1980)
PERB Decision No. 	133:
The employees' 	interest 	in an article
relating to their safety is 	obvious. 	Safety
and health 	stand with wages 	as 	one 	of 	the
more 	fundamental 	areas 	of 	concern 	in a
collective bargaining 	relationship. 	The
District 	does 	not 	advance 	and we 	cannot
adduce 	any manner 	in which negotiating 	this
proposal 	would 	impermissibly 	intrude 	on 	the
District's 	ability to 	fulfill 	its 	mission.
[Emphasis 	added.]
Although CDC has 	the 	right 	to manage 	its 	prisons 	and make
staffing decisions, 	if 	such decisions 	impact 	the 	safety of 	its
employees 	it 	must 	meet 	and confer on the matter with the 	affected
employees prior 	to 	implementation.
15The Dills Act's 	scope of 	representation is 	set 	forth 	in
section 3516 	and is 	as 	follows:
The 	scope 	of 	representation 	shall 	be 	limited
to wages, 	hours, 	and other terms and
conditions of employment, 	. 	. 	.
18

It 	is 	axiomatic 	that prisons 	are 	dangerous places 	to work,
and 	that 	they contain a myriad of 	circumstances 	that 	pose
potential 	risks 	to employees. 	It 	is 	also true 	that 	employees
that 	agree 	to work 	in such 	institutions 	accept 	a 	certain degree
of 	risk as 	a necessary and proper part 	of 	their 	employment.
However, 	when the 	employer 	increases 	the 	degree of 	such risk it
must 	meet 	and 	confer with 	the 	affected 	employees 	regarding 	such
action.
CDC, 	in its brief, 	contends 	that 	CSEA has 	failed to 	show
there was 	a diminution of the 	library workers' 	safety. 	This
contention 	is 	not 	supported by the 	evidence, 	as 	shown 	in the
examples 	set 	forth below:
1. 	It 	is 	clear that 	CDC's 	staffing modification decreased
the 	availability of 	custody personnel 	to 	the 	library workers 	from
an average 	of 	less 	than 50 	feet 	to 	50 yards 	(mid point 	of 	the
yard). 	In addition, 	the yard CO is not 	in a position to hear
whistles, 	scuffles or shouts 	for help.
Even 	if 	the yard CO becomes 	immediately aware 	of 	a 	conflict,
s/he must make 	sure 	all 	yard inmates 	are 	in a prone position, 	run
to 	the 	education building, 	find the 	appropriate 	key, 	unlock the
door 	and begin a 	search 	for 	the 	location of 	the problem. 	This 	is
in contrast 	with 	the 	educational 	officer who, 	upon hearing 	the
confrontation, 	runs 	a 	few steps 	to the 	library and takes
corrective 	action. 	Granted, 	there 	is only a difference of 	a 	few
minutes, 	but when faced with an angry, 	dangerous 	felon, 	even
seconds 	can be 	crucial.
19

2. 	CDC 	attempted 	to 	show that 	historically there 	have been
few problems 	originating 	in the 	education building, 	in general,
and the 	library, 	in particular. 	However, 	one plausible 	reason
for 	this 	low degree 	of 	incidents 	may be 	because 	of 	the very
officer CDC 	is 	attempting 	to 	eliminate.
3. 	The 	law library 	is 	of 	crucial 	importance 	to many
inmates. 	It 	holds 	the means by which they can attempt 	to
persuade 	a 	judge 	to release 	them. 	It 	is 	fraught 	with potential
for conflict. 	Library workers are, 	in general, 	not 	the robust
physical 	specimens 	often seen in COs. 	They are more often older,
smaller and 	female members 	of 	the prison staff. 	This 	is 	a 	factor
that 	should 	be 	taken 	into 	consideration when determining 	the
reasonableness 	of 	safety policies. 	Their protection is 	not 	in
their size, 	nor their strength, 	but 	rather the policies 	and
procedures of 	the prison. 	These policies, 	and the dire
consequences 	to 	inmates 	that violate 	them, 	are manifested in the
presence 	of 	a nearby CO. 	The 	level 	of 	immediacy of 	such CO 	is 	of
crucial 	importance 	in the 	deterrence 	of 	inappropriate 	inmate
behavior. 	This 	immediacy 	is 	not 	enhanced to any appreciable
degree 	by either 	a yard window or 	a 	twice 	hourly 	roving 	CO.
4. 	CDC 	argues 	that 	its 	action does 	not 	create 	"a clear
and present 	danger," 	the MOU standard 	for 	the 	filing of 	a health
and 	safety grievance. 	It 	supports 	this 	argument 	by stating 	the
subject 	post 	elimination merely 	subtracts 	one 	CO 	from the 	total
number of 	available yard COs.
20

This argument 	is rejected. 	CDC fails to understand, 	or
admit, 	that 	it 	is not 	the total 	subtraction of 	one yard CO that
is 	the 	crucial 	element, 	it 	is 	the elimination of 	that 	CO from the
immediate work area, 	thereby depriving 	the 	library worker of
earshot 	assistance.
5. 	MOU section 	10.4.a 	states 	that 	safety grievances 	are
not 	intended 	to 	include 	"an ordinary characteristic 	of 	the work"
or 	risks 	that 	"are 	reasonably associated with performance".
(Emphasis 	added.) 	The gravamen of 	the 	charge 	is 	that 	CDC
appreciably changed 	the 	"ordinary" 	characteristic 	of 	the work, 	as
well 	as 	the 	level 	of 	"reasonableness" 	of 	the 	risks 	associated
with performance.
The 	Dills Act 	requires 	CDC meet 	and confer with 	its
employees' 	recognized representative prior 	to 	its 	implementation
of 	such basic 	changes 	to working 	conditions.
6. 	The 	head of 	Corcoran's 	education 	system admits 	she 	had
the 	library moved 	from a 	location at 	the 	furthest 	end of 	the 	two
legs 	of 	the 	corridor to a 	spot 	next 	to the yard door. 	Her reason
for this move was 	"security concerns." 	In other words, 	it was
too 	far 	from the 	educational 	officer's 	regular patrol 	area 	to be
safe.
Now, 	however, 	CDC is 	insisting that 	its decision to place
the 	nearest 	CO outside 	of 	the 	building 	at 	an average 	distance 	of
50 	yards, 	does not 	constitute a diminution of 	safety.
7. 	Lt. 	Honest 	admitted that 	prison policy directed an
additional 	S&E 	officer be 	assigned when 	the 	number 	of 	inmates 	to
21

be 	transported 	from one 	location 	to 	another 	exceeded 	ten.
However, 	CDC 	sees no 	safety impact 	on 	its 	employees when it
directs 	a middle 	aged female 	library worker, 	with no 	serious
physical 	custody capability, 	to be 	responsible 	for 	thirteen
inmates 	on a regular basis.
An 	examination of 	the 	evidence 	shows 	quite 	clearly that 	a
natural 	consequence 	of 	CDC's 	staffing 	decision was 	a 	diminution
of 	safety for library workers. 	Such action, 	absent 	a meet 	and
confer with 	the 	appropriate 	exclusive 	representatives,
constitutes 	a violation of 	the Dills Act.
Motion 	to Amend 	Complaint 	to 	Include 	Decision
During 	the 	hearing 	CSEA moved 	to 	amend 	the 	complaint 	to
challenge the 	lawfulness of 	CDC's decision, 	not 	just 	its 	effects.
The motion was placed in abeyance, 	pending the 	resolution of 	the
entire case.
The 	"decision" 	at 	issue 	is 	CDC's 	decision to 	amend 	its
staffing 	patterns 	by 	eliminating 	its 	Saturday 	educational
officer. 	The 	impact 	on the 	library workers' 	safety is 	an effect
of 	that 	decision. 	It 	is 	clear that 	CDC has 	the 	authority to
unilaterally make 	such 	staffing decisions. 	It 	is 	only when that
decision 	impacted a matter within the 	scope 	of 	negotiations,
i.e., 	employee 	safety, 	that 	an obligation to meet 	and confer 	is
created.
Therefore, 	the motion to amend the 	complaint 	is 	denied.
22

SUMMARY
After an examination of 	the 	foregoing 	findings 	of 	fact 	and
conclusions of 	law, 	and the 	entire 	record in this 	case, 	it 	is
found 	that 	CDC 	refused 	to meet 	and 	confer 	in good 	faith with 	its
employees' 	recognized employee 	organization on the 	effects 	of 	its
staffing 	decision. 	Such refusal 	constitutes 	a violation of
subdivision 	(c) 	of 	section 3519. 	Such action also 	(1) 	interfered
with 	the 	rights 	of 	the 	affected 	employees 	to 	representation and
(2) 	denied CSEA's 	right 	to represent 	its members. 	Both rights
are 	guaranteed by the Dills Act. 	Such 	interference 	and denial
constitute violations of 	subdivisions 	(a) 	and 	(b) 	of 	section 3519
of 	the Dills Act.
PERB, 	in section 3514.5(c), 	is empowered to
. 	. 	. 	issue a decision and order directing an
offending 	party 	to 	cease 	and 	desist 	from the
unfair practice 	and 	to 	take 	such 	affirmative
action, 	including but 	not 	limited to the
reinstatement 	of 	employees 	with or without
back pay, 	as will 	effectuate 	the policies of
this 	chapter.
In order 	to 	remedy the unfair practice 	of 	the 	respondent 	and
prevent 	it 	from benefitting 	from 	its 	unlawful 	conduct 	and
effectuate 	the purposes of 	the Dills Act, 	it 	is 	appropriate 	to
order CDC 	to 	cease 	and desist 	from 	(1) 	failing 	to meet 	and confer
in good faith, 	(2) 	denying its 	employees 	the right 	to
representation, 	(3) 	denying CSEA its 	right 	to represent 	its
members, 	and 	(4) 	modifying the 	custody staffing 	in its 	libraries
from those 	levels 	in existence prior to 	September 	1998 	until 	the
23

parties 	reach 	agreement 	or have 	completed 	the 	statutory 	impasse
procedures.
It 	is 	also 	appropriate 	that 	the 	respondent 	be 	required 	to
post 	a notice 	incorporating 	the 	terms 	of 	the Order at 	all 	of 	its
Corcoran 	offices 	where 	notices 	are 	customarily placed 	for 	all
employees. 	This 	notice 	should be 	subscribed by an authorized
agent 	of 	CDC, 	indicating that 	it will 	comply with the 	terms
therein. 	The notice 	shall 	not be 	reduced in size, 	defaced,
altered 	or 	covered by any other material. 	Posting 	such 	a 	notice
will 	provide 	employees with notice 	that 	CDC has 	acted 	in an
unlawful 	manner 	and 	is 	being 	required 	to 	cease 	and desist 	from
this 	activity. 	It 	effectuates 	the purposes 	of 	the Dills Act 	that
employees 	be 	informed of 	the 	resolution of 	the 	controversy 	and
will 	announce 	CDC's 	readiness 	to 	comply with 	the 	ordered 	remedy.
(See 	Placerville Union School 	District 	(1978) 	PERB Decision No.
69.) 	In 	Pandol 	and Sons 	v. 	Agricultural 	Labor Relations Board
(1979) 	98 Cal.App.3d 580, 	587 	[159 Cal.Rptr. 	584], 	the California
District 	Court 	of Appeals 	approved a 	similar posting 	requirement.
(See 	also National 	Labor Relations 	Board v. 	Express 	Publishing
Co. 	(1941) 	312 U.S. 	426 	[8 LRRM 415].)
PROPOSED 	ORDER
Based on the 	foregoing 	findings 	of 	fact, 	conclusions 	of 	law,
and the 	entire 	record in this 	case, 	it 	is 	found that 	the 	State
of 	California 	(Department 	of 	Corrections) 	(CDC) 	violated the
Ralph C. 	Dills Act 	(Dills Act), 	Government Code section 3519(a),
24

(b) 	and 	(c). 	Therefore, 	it is hereby ORDERED that CDC, 	its
administrators 	and 	representatives 	shall:
A. 	CEASE AND DESIST FROM:
1. 	Refusing 	to meet 	and confer 	in good 	faith with 	its
employees' 	recognized organization, 	the California State
Employees Association 	(CSEA), 	regarding the effects upon the
safety of 	library workers 	of 	its 	staffing decision at 	the
California State Prison, 	Corcoran 	(Corcoran).
2. 	Denying to 	its 	employees 	the 	right 	of
representation when 	it 	refused 	to meet 	and 	confer 	in good 	faith
on 	the 	subject 	referenced 	in paragraph 	1 	above.
3. 	Denying to 	CSEA the 	right 	to 	represent 	its members
in the meet 	and confer process 	referenced 	in paragraph 	1 	above.
B. 	TAKE 	THE 	FOLLOWING AFFIRMATIVE ACTIONS 	DESIGNED TO
EFFECTUATE 	THE 	POLICIES 	OF THE DILLS ACT.
1. 	Maintain custody staffing 	in all 	Corcoran
libraries 	at 	the 	level 	in existence prior 	to 	September 	1998 	until
a modification 	to 	such 	level 	is 	negotiated with 	and 	agreed 	to 	by
CSEA or until 	such time 	as 	the parties 	have 	reached an 	impasse 	in
negotiations 	and have 	completed the 	impasse procedures 	set 	forth
in Government 	Code 	section 3518.
2. 	Within ten 	(10) 	working days 	of 	service 	of 	a 	final
decision in this matter, 	post at all 	Corcoran offices, 	where
notices 	are 	customarily placed 	for all 	employees, 	copies 	of 	the
notice 	attached hereto as 	an Appendix. 	This 	notice 	must 	be
signed by an authorized agent 	of 	CDC, 	indicating 	that 	it 	will
comply with the 	terms 	of 	this 	Order. 	Such posting 	shall 	be
25

maintained for a period of 	thirty 	(3 0) 	consecutive workdays.
Reasonable 	steps 	shall 	be 	taken to 	insure 	that 	the 	notice 	is 	not
reduced 	in 	size, 	altered, 	defaced or covered by any other
material.
3. 	Upon issuance of a 	final 	decision, 	make written
notification of 	the 	actions 	taken to 	comply with this 	Order 	to
the 	Sacramento 	Regional 	Director of 	the 	Public 	Employment
Relations 	Board 	in accordance with his 	instructions. 	Continue 	to
report, 	in writing, 	to the regional 	director thereafter as
directed. 	All 	reports 	to 	the 	regional 	director 	shall 	be
concurrently 	served 	on 	the 	charging 	party 	herein.
It 	is 	further ordered that 	all 	other aspects 	of 	the 	charge
and 	complaint 	are 	hereby DISMISSED.
Pursuant 	to California Code of Regulations, 	title 	8,
section 	32305, 	this 	Proposed Decision and Order 	shall 	become
final 	unless 	a party 	files 	a 	statement 	of 	exceptions 	with 	the
Board 	itself within 20 	days 	of 	service of 	this 	Decision. 	The
Board's address 	is:
Public 	Employment 	Relations 	Board
Attention: 	Appeals Assistant
1031 	18th 	Street
Sacramento, 	CA 95814-4174
FAX: 	(916) 	327-7960
In accordance with PERB regulations, 	the 	statement 	of
exceptions 	should 	identify by page 	citation 	or 	exhibit 	number 	the
portions 	of 	the record, 	if 	any, 	relied upon for such exceptions.
(Cal. Code Regs., 	tit. 8, 	sec. 32300.)
26

A document 	is 	considered 	"filed" 	when 	actually 	received
before 	the 	close of business 	(5 p.m.) 	on the 	last 	day set 	for
filing 	or when mailed by 	certified 	or 	Express 	United 	States 	mail,
as 	shown on the postal 	receipt 	or postmark, 	or delivered to a
common carrier promising overnight 	delivery, 	as 	shown on the
carrier's 	receipt, 	not 	later than the 	last 	day set 	for 	filing.
(Cal. Code Regs., 	tit. 	8, 	sec. 	32135(a); see also Cal. Code
Regs., tit. 	8, sec. 32130.)
A document 	is 	also 	considered 	"filed" 	when 	received by
facsimile 	transmission before 	the 	close 	of 	business 	on 	the 	last
day for 	filing, 	together with a 	Facsimile 	Transmission Cover
Sheet which meets the requirements of Cal. 	Code Regs., 	tit. 	8,
sec. 	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. 	(Cal. 	Code Regs., 	tit. 	8, 	secs. 	32135(b), 	(c)
and 	(d); 	see also Cal. 	Code Regs., 	tit. 	8, 	secs. 	32090 and
32130.)
Any 	statement 	of 	exceptions 	and 	supporting 	brief 	must 	be
served 	concurrently with 	its 	filing 	upon 	each party 	to 	this
proceeding. 	Proof 	of 	service 	shall 	accompany 	each 	copy 	served on
a party or 	filed with the Board itself. 	(See 	Cal. 	Code Regs.,
tit. 	8, 	secs. 	32300, 	32305, 	32140, and 32135(c).)
Allen R. Link
Administrative 	Law 	Judge
27