State of California (Department of Corrections) (PERB 1272S)

STATE 	OP 	CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF 	THE
PUBLIC 	EMPLOYMENT 	RELATIONS 	BOARD
CALIFORNIA 	CORRECTIONAL 	PEACE
OFFICERS 	ASSOCIATION,
Charging 	Party,
v.
STATE 	OF 	CALIFORNIA 	(DEPARTMENT
OF 	CORRECTIONS),
Respondent.
)
)
) 	Case No. 	SA-CE-915 -S
PERB Decision No. 1272-S
July 	1, 	1998
)
)
)
Appearances: 	Joel H. 	Levinson, 	Attorney, 	for California
Correctional 	Peace Officers Association; 	State 	of 	California
(Department 	of 	Personnel Administration) 	by Timothy G. 	Yeung,
Legal 	Counsel, 	for State of California 	(Department of
Corrections).
Before Caffrey, 	Chairman; 	Johnson, 	Amador and Jackson, 	Members.
DECISION
JACKSON, 	Member: 	This 	case is before the Public Employment
Relations 	Board 	(Board) 	on appeal by the 	State 	of 	California
(Department of Corrections) 	(Department) 	and the California
Correctional 	Peace Officers Association 	(Association), 	from an
administrative law judge's 	(ALJ) 	proposed decision. 	The ALJ
found that: 	(1) 	the Department discriminated against 	Correctional
Officer John Baird 	(Baird) 	in violation of 	section 3519(a) 	of 	the
Ralph C. 	Dills Act 	(Dills Act) 	by disciplining him for his
refusal 	to transport an inmate who had tuberculosis; 	and 	(2) 	the
Department did not violate section 3519(a) 	and 	(b) 	of 	the Dills
Act 	by 	reprimanding 	Baird 	for 	discourtesy when 	Baird made 	openly
)
)
)
)
)
______________ )

harsh 	remarks 	toward his 	supervisor during 	a private 	discussion
about 	a grievance.1
The 	Association 	informed 	the 	Board by 	letter 	dated June 	4,
1998 	that 	the matter had been settled by 	the parties. 	The
Department 	confirmed 	this 	settlement 	in a 	letter 	to 	the 	Board
dated June 19, 	1998. 	Accordingly, 	the Association requests
withdrawal 	of 	the unfair practice 	charge, 	with prejudice and 	that
the Board dismiss 	the 	complaint. 	Having 	considered the 	request,
the Board concurs 	that 	it 	is 	in the best 	interest 	of 	the parties
and consistent with the purposes 	of 	the Dills Act 	to grant 	the
request 	for withdrawal.
ORDER
It 	is hereby ORDERED that 	the exceptions 	are withdrawn, 	the
proposed decision is VACATED, 	and 	the unfair practice 	charge and
complaint 	in Case No. 	SA-CE-915-S are DISMISSED.
Chairman 	Caffrey and Members 	Johnson and Amador 	joined 	in 	this
Decision.
1The Dills Act 	is 	codified at 	Government 	Code 	section 	3512
et seq. 	Section 3519 provides, 	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
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.
22