State of California (Department of Corrections) (PERB 1388S)

STATE 	OF 	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-975 -S
PERB Decision No. 	1388-S
May 25, 2000
)
)
)
)
)
)
Appearances; 	Shelly Lytle, 	Staff Legal Counsel, 	for California
Correctional 	Peace Officers Association; 	State of 	California
(Department 	of 	Personnel Administration) 	by Roy J. 	Chastain,
Labor Relations 	Counsel, 	for State of 	California 	(Department 	of
Corrections).
Before Dyer, 	Amador and Baker, 	Members.
DECISION
DYER, 	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 a Board
administrative 	law judge's 	(ALJ) 	proposed decision. 	In his
proposed decision, 	the ALJ held 	that 	the 	State violated 	section
3519(a), 	(b) 	and 	(c) 	of the Ralph C. Dills Act 	(Dills Act)1 when
1The Dills 	Act 	is 	codified at 	Government 	Code 	section 	3512
et seq. 	Section 3519 provides, 	in relevant 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.
)
)
______________ )

it 	implemented a 	reorganization at 	the 	Correctional 	Training
Facility 	(CTF), 	a prison in Soledad, 	California, 	without
providing 	the 	California 	Correctional 	Peace 	Officers 	Association
(CCPOA) 	with an opportunity 	to meet 	and 	confer over negotiable
effects 	of 	the 	decreased levels 	of 	supervision 	caused by 	the
reorganization. 	The ALJ also 	found 	that 	the State violated
provisions 	of 	the Dills Act when 	it 	failed to provide 	CCPOA with
information 	relevant 	and necessary to 	its 	duty 	to 	represent
employees.
The Board has 	reviewed 	the 	entire 	record 	in this 	case,
including the proposed decision, 	the hearing transcript, 	the
State's 	exceptions 	and CCPOA's 	response. 	The Board 	concludes
that 	the 	State violated the Dills Act when it 	refused to meet 	and
confer over 	the 	reasonably 	foreseeable 	effects 	of 	the
reorganization 	of 	CTF and when 	it 	failed 	to provide 	CCPOA with
information pertinent 	to 	its 	representational 	activities 	in a
timely manner.
PROCEDURAL 	HISTORY
On April 	21, 	1997, 	CCPOA filed an unfair practice charge
with PERB against the State. 	On May 21, 	1997, 	the Office of the
General 	Counsel 	of 	PERB, 	after an investigation, 	issued a
complaint against 	the State, 	alleging violations 	of Dills Act
(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

section 3519(a), 	(b) 	and 	(c). 	On June 12, 	1997, 	the State
answered the 	complaint, 	denying all material 	allegations 	and
asserting 	affirmative 	defenses.
On July 8, 	1997, 	a conference was held in an unsuccessful
attempt 	to 	reach settlement. 	The ALJ held a 	formal 	hearing on
October 21 and 22, 	1997, 	and April 	15 and 16, 	1998. 	Both parties
prepared and 	submitted briefs. 	The 	last 	brief 	was 	filed on
January 20, 	1999, 	and the case was 	submitted for a proposed
decision at 	that 	time. 	On March 26, 	1999, 	the ALJ rendered a
proposed 	decision holding 	that 	the 	State violated Dills 	Act
section 3519(a), 	(b) 	and 	(c) 	when it refused to negotiate the
effects 	of 	its 	decision 	to 	reorganize 	the 	supervisory 	structure
at 	CTF, 	and when 	it 	failed to provide 	requested 	information which
was 	relevant 	and necessary 	to 	CCPOA's 	right 	to 	represent
employees.
The 	State 	filed exceptions 	to 	the proposed decision 	on
May 18, 	1999, 	challenging the ALJ's 	conclusion that 	the
reorganization at 	CTF had a 	reasonably 	foreseeable 	impact 	on a
negotiable 	subject, 	contending 	that 	any 	impact was 	"indirect 	and
speculative." 	The 	State also 	excepts 	to 	the ALJ's 	finding 	that
it 	failed 	to provide 	"staffing packages" 	regarding 	the
reorganization, 	claiming 	that 	it provided all 	staffing
information 	that 	existed at 	the 	time.
INTRODUCTION
CCPOA complains 	of a March, 	1997 	reorganization plan at 	CTF.
It 	asserts 	that 	such a plan created a duty on the part 	of 	the
33

4
State 	to 	negotiate 	the plan's 	effects 	on the 	correctional
officers 	(COs) 	that 	constitute 	State Bargaining Unit 	6.2 CCPOA
states 	this 	plan diminishes 	the 	quantum of 	supervision available
to COs, 	thereby impacting, 	inter alia, 	training and performance
reports. 	The plan also creates potential 	disciplinary problems
as 	a 	result 	of 	the 	COs being 	required to 	take 	remedial 	inmate
action(s) 	which would not be 	required 	if proper supervision was
available. 	CCPOA contends 	that 	this 	increased disciplinary
potential 	impacts promotional possibilities and wages. 	It
objects 	to 	the 	State's 	refusal 	to negotiate 	the 	effects 	of 	this
reorganization plan.
The 	State 	asserts 	the 	reorganization plan merely 	equalizes
the number of 	inmates 	that 	sergeants 	and lieutenants 	supervise,
and makes 	no change 	in the number of 	CO positions 	in any of 	its
facilities or program units. 	Therefore, 	the State asserts 	that
there 	is 	no impact on the COs' 	working conditions.
CCPOA additionally alleges 	that 	the 	State 	failed 	to provide,
on a 	timely basis, 	a 	copy of 	the 	reorganization staffing
packages. 	The 	State did not 	respond to 	the 	charge 	of 	failing 	to
provide 	staffing packages 	on a 	timely basis, 	other than to 	state
that 	it 	eventually provided such material. 	It 	suggested that 	as
there was no impact 	on the COs' 	scope of employment, 	there was no
need 	to provide 	such packages.
2The 	complaint 	alleges problems 	at 	CTF's 	Central 	and South
Facilities. 	CCPOA asserts 	this was 	in error, 	and that 	the
complaint 	should have 	alleged problems 	with 	the 	South and North
Facilities, 	and not 	the Central 	Facility. 	A motion was granted
to 	substitute North 	Facility 	for Central 	Facility.

BACKGROUND
The parties 	stipulated that 	CCPOA is 	a 	recognized 	employee
organization and that 	the 	State 	is 	the 	employer within the
meaning of 	the Dills Act.
Prior to March 1997, 	CTF was divided into 	three 	facilities,
Central, 	North and South, 	based on geographic 	considerations.
Sometime 	in late 	1996, 	CTF decided to reorganize 	its 	inmate
population.
Prior to this 	reorganization, 	there was a disparity in the
number of 	inmates assigned to each facility. 	The 	State asserts
that 	the primary purpose 	of 	the 	reorganization was 	to develop
numerical parity within these various 	facilities. 	The State
describes 	secondary 	reasons 	for 	the 	reorganizations 	as 	the
"cleaning up" 	of 	the 	chain-of-command and changing 	the prison
from a 	tri-facility 	complex 	into a 	program unit 	structure.
Information 	Request
In early February 1997, 	CCPOA's Chapter President, 	CO Joseph
Biggs 	(Biggs), 	was told by Lieutenant Russell Pope, 	CTF's
employee 	relations 	officer, 	of 	a proposed prison reorganization
plan. 	The 	reorganization would create 	seven program units, 	based
primarily upon an equal 	division of 	the 	inmate population.3
On February 7, 	1997, 	CCPOA had a meeting with the State, 	at
which 	time 	Biggs 	asked various 	questions 	regarding potential
impact 	issues 	on his members. 	He 	specifically asked 	for the new
3Central 	Facility became Units 	I, 	II and III; 	North Facility
became Units 	IV, 	V and VI; 	South Facility became Unit VII.
55

"staffing packages" 	created by 	the 	reorganization. 	The 	term
"staffing packages" 	was never defined, 	but 	it 	seems 	to include
any reassignments 	and modifications 	of 	CO post 	orders.4
The 	State did not provide any such packages 	at 	that 	time.
On February 27, 	Biggs 	requested a delay 	in the effective date of
the 	reorganization until 	the 	staffing packages 	could be provided.
The request was denied. 	On March 20, 	Biggs 	filed a grievance 	in
which he 	requested a 	"meet and 	confer" 	on the 	impact 	of 	the
reorganization on CCPOA's members. 	His 	grievance was denied.
Sometime 	in April, 	CCPOA received new staffing packages 	for
the North Facility, 	but 	State 	officials 	admitted that 	they were
still 	in 	the process 	of being 	revised. 	From that 	time until
October, 	1997, 	the date of the hearing, 	no new staffing packages
were 	provided.
Reorganizational 	Changes 	in 	the 	Facilities
The 	reorganization of 	the 	Central 	Facility 	contracted 	the
number of units 	from four to 	three. 	There were no changes 	in the
number of 	overall 	CO positions, 	and CCPOA filed no complaints
regarding 	this 	facility.
The 	only change at 	the 	South Facility was 	to 	rename 	it 	from
South 	to 	Program Unit VII. 	No 	staffing 	changes with 	regard to
lieutenant, 	sergeant 	or CO positions 	occurred as a result 	of 	the
4Post 	orders 	are provided 	for each CO position 	in 	the
prison. 	They set 	forth, 	with a high degree of 	specificity,
exactly how the 	CO 	assigned 	to 	that 	position 	is 	to 	fulfill
his/her 	responsibilities. 	They describe 	the hour-by-hour 	tasks
as 	well 	as 	how to 	respond to various 	alarms 	and other
emergencies. 	Failure 	to be aware 	of and/or to 	follow one's post
orders 	is a serious 	department 	offense.
6

7
"reorganization" 	of 	this 	facility.5
The 	reorganization of 	the North Facility made 	no 	changes 	in
the number of 	overall 	CO positions. 	Both before and after the
reorganization, 	inmates were housed in 	four halls 	and three
dorms.6 A hall 	is 	composed of 	one building 	divided by an
elevated sallyport. 	Each hall 	has an 	"A" 	and 	"B" 	side 	(with
three 	tiers 	of 	cells), 	with two hall 	officers on each side and
one 	sallyport 	officer in the middle. 	Inmates 	cannot 	freely move
from side 	"A" 	to side 	"B". 	Prior to March of 1997, 	each shift
had one 	sergeant and five COs 	in each hall, 	two on each side and
one 	sallyport 	officer. 	Each hall 	CO was 	directly responsible 	to
his/her hall 	sergeant. 	One 	of 	these hall 	sergeants also had
supervision of 	the North Dorm.7 Both before 	and after 	the
reorganization, 	there were CO positions 	assigned to each yard, 	as
well 	as 	two S&E CO positions.8
After the 	reorganization, 	the areas 	of 	responsibility
5During 	the hearing, 	evidence was 	received regarding 	the
activation of a CO position at South Facility, 	Post No. 	3055".
This was 	effected outside 	of 	the March, 	1997 	reorganization plan,
and was 	not within the parameters 	of 	the 	complaint. 	Furthermore,
there 	was 	no 	showing 	that 	activation of 	this position affected
any matter within 	the 	scope 	of 	representation.
6The halls were named Lassen, 	Rainier, 	Shasta and Whitney.
The dorms were named Fremont, 	North and Toro.
7Toro 	and 	Fremont 	Dorms 	were 	temporarily used 	to house
inmates 	during an asbestos 	abatement 	process 	which 	took place 	in
various 	CTF buildings 	in 1996.
8S&E positions 	refers 	to Search and Escort positions.
Personnel 	in these positions 	have various duties, 	but are
considered an essential 	part 	of 	the 	institution's 	primary
emergency 	response 	team.

changed, 	with a 	sergeant 	being assigned supervision of 	each of
the program units. 	Unit 	IV consisted of Rainier 	"B" 	and all 	of
Lassen Hall. 	Unit V consisted of 	Fremont 	and North Dorms,
Rainier 	"A" 	and Shasta 	"B". 	Unit VI 	consisted of Toro Dorm,
Shasta 	"A", 	and all 	of Whitney Hall.9
CCPOA contends 	that 	implementation of 	the 	reorganization
plan impacted the working conditions 	of 	its members. 	We agree.
DISCUSSION
On appeal, 	the State renews 	its argument 	that 	the
reorganization 	of 	CTF did not 	have 	a 	reasonably 	foreseeable
effect 	on any matter within the 	scope 	of bargaining. 	The 	State
contends 	that 	the 	reorganization merely 	changed 	the 	duties 	and
responsibilities 	of 	supervisory employees 	and 	that 	any effect 	of
the 	reorganization on bargaining unit members 	was 	"indirect 	and
speculative." 	The 	State's 	claim is 	rejected.
The ALJ properly held 	that 	the 	State's 	decision 	to
reorganize 	CTF was 	outside 	of 	the 	scope 	of 	representation.
(Dills Act sec. 	3516;10 see Regents of the University of
9For example, 	after March 1997, 	the sergeant assigned to
Unit V, 	rather than having 	responsibility 	for both sides 	of 	one
hall, 	was now supervising two dorms, 	one-half 	of Rainier Hall and
one-half 	of 	Shasta Hall.
10Dills Act 	section 3516 provides:
The 	scope 	of 	representation 	shall 	be 	limited
to wages, 	hours, 	and other terms and
conditions of employment, 	except, 	however,
that 	the 	scope 	of 	representation shall 	not
include 	consideration of 	the merits,
necessity, 	or organization of any service or
activity provided by 	law or 	executive 	order.
88

- -
California 	(Lawrence Livermore National 	Laboratory) 	(1997) 	PERB
Decision No. 	1221-H 	(Regents) 	at p. 	5 	(interpreting substantively
identical 	provisions 	of 	the 	Higher Education Employer-Employee
Relations Act 	(HEERA)u); 	Regents 	of 	the University of California
(1987) 	PERB Decision No. 	640-H at p. 	20 	(noting that
reorganizational 	decisions 	are 	within 	the 	employer's
prerogative).) 	Nonetheless, 	even when an employer has no
obligation to negotiate about 	a particular decision, 	the Dills
Act 	obligates 	the 	employer to meet 	and 	confer over all 	reasonably
foreseeable 	effects 	of 	that 	decision 	to 	the 	extent 	that 	they
impact 	the 	terms and conditions 	of 	employment. 	(Regents at
pp. 5 - 6.)
A unilateral 	modification 	of 	terms 	and 	conditions 	of
employment within the 	scope 	of 	negotiations 	that has 	a
generalized effect 	or continuing 	impact 	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
(San Mateo); 	Grant Joint Union High School District 	(1982) 	PERB
Decision No. 	196.)
Under Dills Act 	section 3519(c), 	the state employer is
obligated 	to meet 	and negotiate 	in 	good 	faith with an 	exclusive
representative 	about matters 	within 	the 	scope 	of 	representation.
This 	section precludes 	an 	employer 	from making unilateral 	changes
11HEERA is 	codified at Government 	Code 	section 3560 	et 	seq.
9

in the status 	quo, 	whether such status quo 	is 	evidenced by a
collective bargaining agreement 	or past practice. 	(Anaheim City-
School District 	(1983) 	PERB Decision No. 	364; 	Pittsburg Unified
School District 	(1982) 	PERB Decision No. 	199.)
The 	State 	insists 	that 	its 	reorganization plan did no more
than amend 	the 	configuration 	of 	the 	prison population 	from an
emphasis 	on geographic 	considerations 	to 	one based on program
needs.12 As a result, 	it continues, 	various supervisory-
personnel 	were given new assignments. 	The State 	insists 	CCPOA
has 	no 	right 	to participate 	in 	its 	assignment 	of 	supervisory
personnel. 	However, 	if 	such a management decision affects
matters within the COs' 	scope of representation, 	an employer is
obligated 	to negotiate 	the 	effects 	thereof under the Dills Act.
In 	the 	event 	an employer 	is unsure whether or not a
particular subject 	is negotiable, 	it 	is under an obligation to
ask the union 	for 	its 	negotiability justification. 	"The very
essence 	of 	the 	duty 	to negotiate 	in good 	faith 	. . . 	is 	the
effort 	to 	reach agreement. 	A refusal 	to address 	in any manner
proposals 	which are unclear 	is 	inconsistent 	with 	the 	statutory
obligation." 	(San Mateo at p. 	9.) 	As 	illustrated 	in the
examples below, 	such an obligation existed in the present 	case.
Examples 	of 	Effects 	of Reorganization Plan
1. 	Diminished Routine Supervision: 	prior to the
reorganization, 	if 	a hall 	incident 	occurred that was beyond the
12As 	previously noted, 	the 	reorganization plan primarily
affected 	the 	CO's 	duties 	at 	the North Facility.
10

knowledge 	or 	comfort-level 	of 	the 	involved CO, 	s/he would merely
ask the hall 	sergeant 	to 	step over to 	resolve 	the problem. 	This
was possible as 	the 	sergeant was 	headquartered 	in that 	hall 	and
was physically present most 	of 	the day. 	However, 	after the
reorganization, 	the sergeant was 	rarely in the hall, 	due 	to
his/her other 	responsibilities. 	One 	CO 	said that 	she now sees
her supervising 	sergeant 	approximately twice a day, 	as 	his 	office
is 	in another building.
Due 	to 	the 	diminished presence 	of 	their 	immediate
supervisors, 	individual 	COs are 	required to make decisions 	that
had routinely been made by sergeants. 	These decisions, 	although
made 	in a split 	second, 	are 	subject 	to 	later in-depth examination
by management 	with potentially negative 	results 	on CO 	careers.
There 	is 	no doubt 	that 	these 	types 	of 	situations 	occurred at
times prior to the 	reorganization, 	but with its 	implementation,
the 	frequency of 	such 	incidents 	increased.
It 	can be 	seen 	that 	the 	diminished supervision 	caused by 	the
reorganization plan 	subjects 	the 	COs 	to 	greater disciplinary
liability 	for decisions 	that 	they have 	not 	been 	trained 	to make.
These 	potentially negative 	consequences 	could also 	impact 	future
promotional 	or transfer opportunities, 	which impact wages, 	an
item specifically 	enumerated 	in 	the 	scope 	of 	representation.
Therefore, 	we 	find 	that 	the 	diminished 	supervision occasioned by
the 	reorganization plan has 	a discernible 	effect 	on discipline
and promotional 	opportunities.
2. 	Diminished Emergency Supervision: 	the COs are able 	to
11

reach their sergeants by telephone, 	but 	this process 	is
laborious, 	time 	consuming and does not 	lend itself 	to receipt 	of
immediate 	answers 	to 	time-sensitive problems. 	To 	reach his/her
supervising sergeant, 	a hall 	CO asks 	the 	sallyport 	CO to summon
the 	sergeant. 	The sallyport CO calls 	the nearest 	tower, 	which
then radios 	the 	sergeant 	to either 	come 	to 	the hall 	or to 	call
the sallyport.
If 	the 	sergeant 	comes 	to the hall, 	s/he leaves 	other matters
and proceeds 	to 	the area. 	There 	is 	a necessary delay between the
initial 	request and the 	sergeant's 	eventual 	arrival. 	If 	the
sergeant declines 	to proceed to the hall, 	but 	rather calls, 	the
sallyport 	officer acts as 	a go-between, 	relaying each person's
questions 	and answers verbally 	to 	the 	other.
When asked 	if 	a 	lieutenant was 	a viable alternative 	if 	they
were unable 	to locate 	their sergeant, 	several 	CO witnesses 	said
they were not 	encouraged to exercise 	this 	option. 	They said
lieutenants 	would 	routinely 	tell 	them to 	try harder 	to 	find 	their
sergeant.
In theory, 	in the absence of his/her supervising sergeant, 	a
CO 	is 	supposed 	to 	try to 	reach the 	sergeant 	in charge 	of 	the
other side of 	the hall, 	but that creates problems, 	even if 	s/he
is available, 	because the sergeants are all very territorial. 	In
practice, 	COs believe 	they are 	"supposed to handle" 	the problem.
There 	is 	nothing 	in the hall 	CO's post 	orders 	describing 	the
appropriate action that 	is 	to be 	taken when s/he 	is unable 	to
reach his/her 	sergeant.
12

3. 	Senior COs 	Placed 	in a Quasi-Supervisory Role: 	it 	is
clear that, 	due to the reorganization, 	on a de 	facto basis, 	many
senior COs 	are 	called upon to 	"supervise" 	their junior
counterparts. 	It 	follows 	that 	this 	results 	in decisions 	that are
not 	supported by authority 	and/or 	training.
There 	is nothing in a CO's post 	orders 	that 	requires him/her
to assume 	a 	supervisory role 	over other COs. 	This 	supervision
goes 	well 	beyond a veteran CO 	showing a 	rookie how things 	are
done. 	In many situations 	these 	senior COs 	are 	required 	to make
decisions 	that were 	formerly made by sergeants. 	Granted, 	this
undoubtedly happened at various 	times 	prior 	to 	the
reorganization. 	However, 	the 	reorganization has vastly increased
the 	frequency of 	such action. 	With regard to 	the halls, 	the
reorganization 	has 	decreased 	the 	supervising 	sergeant's
availability 	from 85-90 	percent 	of 	each day to 	twice a day, 	in
some 	instances. 	As a result of 	the reorganization, 	COs are
required 	to perform duties 	above 	and beyond 	those 	set 	forth 	in
their 	classification.
The 	de 	facto placement 	of 	senior COs 	into 	supervisory 	roles
also 	has 	a potential 	impact 	on discipline 	and promotional
opportunities. 	The 	rights and obligations 	of 	such quasi-
supervisory 	roles 	have 	a 	sufficiently 	substantial 	effect 	on 	the
COs' 	scope of 	representation that the effects 	thereof must be
negotiated with 	CCPOA.
4. 	Conflicting Supervision of 	Sallyport 	Officer and
Conflicting Orders 	Regarding 	Inmate 	Processing; 	the 	sallyport
13

officer 	continues 	to 	be 	responsible 	for maintaining 	surveillance
over both halves 	of 	each hall. 	However, 	s/he now takes direction
from two separate, 	but equal, 	sergeants, 	each responsible for
one-half of 	the hall. 	Granted, 	one of these sergeants 	is the
sallyport 	officer's 	immediate 	supervisor, 	but 	that person 	is not
responsible 	for the 	other half 	of 	the hall. 	There 	is nothing in
the 	sallyport 	officer's 	post 	orders 	telling him/her how these
potential 	conflicts 	are 	to be 	resolved. 	Such 	conflicting 	orders
could lead to negative 	impacts 	on CO evaluations, 	thus affecting
salary and wages.
Additionally, 	with different 	sergeants 	in charge of 	each
half 	of a hall, 	there 	is 	the potential 	for conflicting orders as
to how to process 	or 	feed 	inmates. 	Such conflicting orders 	could
also lead to negative 	impacts 	on CO evaluations, 	again affecting
salary and wages.
5. 	Diminished Training Opportunities: 	under the
reorganization plan, 	the availability of 	on-the-job 	training
(OJT) 	is diminished. 	In the past, 	the hall sergeant would
periodically 	effect 	a 	temporary 	lockdown of 	the 	inmates 	and
conduct OJT in his/her office. 	Now, 	as 	the sergeant 	is 	rarely in
the hall, 	there are 	fewer opportunities 	for such training.
Each CO 	is personally responsible 	for obtaining 40 	hours 	of
training each year. 	OJT is a part 	of 	this 	requirement. 	The
diminished level 	of OJT requires 	the CO to obtain the 40 	hours
elsewhere. 	At 	CTF, 	in-service and block training are available,
both with live instructors. 	However, 	the advantage of OJT is
14

that 	it 	is personalized, 	i.e., 	the training is 	specific to the
daily duties performed by the 	trainee. 	OJT allows 	the 	sergeant
to assess 	the 	specific areas 	in which each 	individual 	trainee
needs 	assistance, 	and to provide additional 	training 	in those
areas. 	Diminished training, 	if allowed to continue, 	will
ultimately have an impact 	on the COs' 	salary and promotional
opportunities.
The 	diminished 	training 	opportunities 	go 	to 	the very essence
of 	the 	institution. 	The very best 	organizational 	plan 	is 	only as
good as 	the 	training of 	the 	COs 	charged with its 	implementation.
Accuracy 	of 	apprentice 	reports 	also 	impacts 	the 	ability 	of 	each
CO to do his/her part 	in the 	institutional 	plan. 	Each of 	these
items 	have wage 	consequences. 	The State has an obligation to
negotiate 	their 	effects 	with CCPOA.
6. 	Diminished Accuracy of Apprentice Reports: 	CCPOA argues
that 	CTF has 	a high percentage 	of 	apprentice COs 	compared to
other prisons. 	Each new CO goes 	through a 	two-year
apprenticeship program, 	during which 	s/he 	receives 	four
apprenticeship and 	three probation reports. 	These 	reports 	are
prepared by 	the 	sergeants.
CCPOA further contends 	that, 	under the reorganization, 	the
sergeants 	have 	insufficient 	contact 	with 	these 	apprentices 	to
prepare accurate 	reports. 	An inaccurate 	"negative" 	report
unfairly penalizes 	a good apprentice 	CO 	and 	causes 	resentment.
An 	inaccurate 	"positive" 	report unfairly damages 	the 	other COs'
morale and affects 	the COs' 	working conditions.
15

CTF 	insists 	that 	the 	timeliness 	of 	these 	reports 	has 	greatly
improved 	since 	the 	reorganization. 	The 	timeliness 	may have
improved, 	but 	this 	may actually add 	to 	the 	accuracy problem.
There 	is 	a 	serious 	question as 	to whether the 	sergeants 	have
enough 	contact 	with 	their 	subordinates 	to 	compile 	accurate
reports. 	If 	the 	sergeant 	has 	insufficient 	information upon which
to 	compile an accurate 	report, 	s/he has 	no 	choice but 	to 	turn to
the 	senior CO on the hall/dorm for assistance. 	This 	reinforces
the prior example, 	which discussed a 	senior CO being given
de facto supervisory duties 	- - 	duties not within his/her
classification.
Staffing 	Packages
CCPOA complains 	of 	the State's 	failure 	to provide 	"staffing
packages" 	for the North Facility prior to the March 3, 	1997,
implementation date 	of 	the 	reorganization plan. 	It 	further
complains 	that 	when 	it 	did 	receive 	such 	staffing packages 	in
April 	of 	1997, 	they were not 	final but were 	in the process of
being 	revised. 	At 	the 	time of 	the hearing 	it 	still 	had not
received 	these 	revisions.
It 	has 	been long held by both 	the National 	Labor Relations
Board 	(NLRB) 	and PERB 	that 	the duty 	to bargain 	in good faith
requires 	an employer 	to 	furnish all 	information 	that 	is 	necessary
and 	relevant 	to 	its 	employee 	representative's 	duty 	to 	represent
unit employees. 	(NLRB v. 	Acme Industrial Co. 	(1967) 	385 U.S. 	432
[64 LRRM 2069]; 	Proctor & Gamble Mfg. 	Co. 	v. 	NLRB 	(8th Cir. 	1979)
603 	F.2d 	1310 	[102 	LRRM 2128].) 	In defining 	"necessary and
16

relevant," 	PERB 	in Stockton Unified School District 	(1980) 	PERB
Decision No. 	143 	(Stockton) 	held that 	information pertaining
immediately 	to mandatory 	subjects 	of 	bargaining 	is 	so 	intrinsic
to 	the 	core 	of 	the 	employer-employee 	relationship 	that 	it 	is
considered presumptively 	relevant 	and must 	be 	disclosed unless
the 	employer 	can establish that 	the 	information 	is 	plainly
irrelevant 	or 	can provide 	adequate 	reason why 	it 	cannot 	furnish
the 	information. 	(Western Mass. 	Electric Co. 	v. 	NLRB 	(1st Cir.
1978) 	573 	F.2d 101 	[98 LRRM 2851].) 	In Stockton. 	PERB applied
this 	NLRB precedent 	to parties 	under 	the 	Educational 	Employment
Relations Act 	(EERA)13, 	based on the language of EERA section
3543.5(c). 	The language of Dills Act section 3519(c) 	is
substantively identical 	to that 	of 	EERA section 3543.5(c).
Therefore, 	the precedents 	established by PERB with regard 	to EERA
are applicable 	to cases under the Dills Act.
Information 	requests 	turn 	on the particular 	facts 	involved.
(Chula Vista City School District 	(1990) 	PERB Decision No. 	834.)
As was previously discussed, 	it 	is 	clear that 	the 	requested
information was 	necessary and 	relevant 	to 	CCPOA's 	duty 	to
represent 	its members. 	It 	is 	also 	clear that 	the State 	failed to
provide 	the 	requested material 	in a 	timely manner. 	An employer
cannot 	simply refuse 	to provide 	information or 	ignore a 	request.
(Chula Vista at p. 	53.) 	The State's defense 	seemed to be 	that
such 	"packages" 	had not been 	completed by the 	reorganization's
implementation date, 	and that 	it gave 	CCPOA the 	requested
13EERA is 	codified at Government 	Code 	section 3540 	et 	seq.
17

material 	as 	soon as 	it was developed. 	As 	the ALJ 	found, 	this
defense 	is unpersuasive.14 From the 	record, 	it appears 	that
CCPOA 	communicated 	its 	dissatisfaction with 	the 	information
provided, 	and 	reasserted a 	clear 	request 	for the 	information
contained 	in these packages. 	(State 	of 	California 	(Department 	of
Personnel Administration and Transportation) 	(1997) 	PERB Decision
No. 	1227-S 	(Caltrans) 	at p. 	7; 	cf. 	Oakland Unified School
District 	(1983) 	PERB Decision No. 	367.) 	The reorganization went
into effect on March 3, 	1997. 	In order to implement 	the plan,
the 	State 	had 	to have 	some 	interim plans 	regarding 	changes 	in
staffing. 	Although 	the 	State 	did not 	need 	to 	furnish 	information
in a 	form more 	organized than 	its 	own records 	(NLRB v. 	Tex-Tan,
-
Inc. 	(1963) 	318 F.2d 472 	[53 LRRM 2298]), 	it should have provided
whatever 	interim information 	it 	had to CCPOA. 	Its 	failure 	to do
so violated the Dills Act. 	(Caltrans.)
CCPOA also 	complains 	of 	the 	State's 	failure 	to provide
information 	regarding 	the 	South 	Facility's 	control 	officer
reassignment 	as 	a part 	of 	the material 	it 	requested. 	CCPOA asked
for 	staffing modifications 	occasioned by 	the 	reorganization.
However, 	as was previously noted, 	this 	reassignment 	is a matter
14The ALJ, 	after conducting 	the hearing and observing and
weighing the witnesses' 	testimony, 	made a credibility
determination 	regarding this matter. 	We decline 	to disturb 	that
determination, 	since 	it 	is a well-established principle of 	PERB
case 	law that 	the Board grants 	great 	deference 	to 	the ALJ's
credibility determinations. 	(Temple 	City Unified 	School 	District
(1990) 	PERB Decision No. 	841.) 	Absent 	information in the record
to 	support 	overturning such a 	credibility determination, 	the
Board defers 	to 	the ALJ's 	findings. 	(Whisman Elementary School
District 	(1991) 	PERB Decision No. 	868.)
18

that 	is 	outside 	of 	the March 1997 	reorganization plan.
Therefore, 	the State's 	failure 	to provide 	such 	information as a
part 	of 	its 	reorganization plan 	staffing modifications 	is 	excused
and not 	a violation of 	the Dills Act.
CONCLUSION
The 	reorganization altered 	the 	supervisory 	structure 	at 	CTF,
placing 	some 	Correctional 	Sergeants 	in 	charge 	of more 	than one
location. 	Both CCPOA and State witnesses 	testified 	that 	this
change 	affected 	the 	level 	of 	supervision 	for bargaining unit
members. 	Here, 	the diminution in the level 	of 	supervision
creates 	a potential 	impact 	on both working 	conditions 	and
promotional 	opportunities, 	both of which have an impact 	on wages.
In 	this unique 	setting, 	after taking 	into 	consideration 	the
number, 	nature and overall 	ramifications 	of 	the 	changes 	involved,
we 	find 	that 	changes 	in the 	level 	of 	supervision which have a
reasonably 	foreseeable 	impact 	on 	the 	conditions 	of 	employment 	or
wages 	of 	bargaining unit members must 	be 	negotiated.
Accordingly, 	we 	find that 	the 	State violated the Dills Act when
it 	failed 	to meet 	and 	confer 	over 	the 	reasonably 	foreseeable
effects 	of 	the 	reorganization and unreasonably delayed 	in
providing 	information pertinent 	to 	those 	effects.
ORDER
Upon the 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)
19

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 employee organization, 	the California
Correctional 	Peace Officers Association 	(CCPOA) 	on the 	subject 	of
the 	effects 	of 	its March 	1997 	reorganization plan at 	the
California Training Facility, 	Soledad 	(CTF).
2. 	Refusing 	to provide 	requested 	information 	that 	was
necessary and relevant 	to CCPOA's 	duty 	to 	represent 	its 	members.
3. 	Denying to 	its 	employees 	the right 	of
representation at 	the meet 	and 	confer 	sessions 	described 	in
paragraph No. 	1.
4. 	Denying 	to 	CCPOA the 	right 	to 	represent 	its members
in the meet and confer session(s) 	described in paragraph No. 	1.
B. 	TAKE 	THE 	FOLLOWING AFFIRMATIVE ACTIONS 	DESIGNED TO
EFFECTUATE THE 	POLICIES 	OF THE DILLS ACT:
1. 	Upon request by CCPOA, 	agree 	to meet and confer in
good 	faith with CCPOA on 	the 	subject 	of 	the 	effects 	of 	its March
1997 	reorganization plan at 	the 	CTF.
2. 	Provide all 	current 	staffing packages 	resulting
from the March 3, 	1997, 	reorganization at 	CTF to CCPOA.
3. 	Within thirty-five 	(35) 	days 	following the date
that 	this Decision 	is no longer subject 	to reconsideration, 	post
at 	all 	CTF offices 	where notices 	to 	employees are 	customarily
placed, 	copies 	of 	the Notice attached hereto as an Appendix.
This 	Notice must 	be 	signed by an authorized agent 	of 	the 	State,
20

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.
4. 	Written notification of 	the actions 	taken to comply
with 	this 	Order 	shall 	be made 	to 	the 	Sacramento 	Regional 	Director
of 	the 	Public 	Employment 	Relations 	Board 	in accordance with 	the
director's 	instructions. 	All 	reports 	to the regional 	director
shall 	be 	concurrently 	served 	on 	CCPOA.
All 	other aspects 	of 	the 	charge and complaint 	are hereby
DISMISSED.
Members Amador and Baker 	joined 	in 	this 	Decision.
21

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-975-S,
California Correctional 	Peace Officers 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 employee organization, 	the California
Correctional 	Peace Officers Association 	(CCPOA) 	on the 	subject 	of
the 	effects 	of 	its March 	1997 	reorganization plan at 	the
California Training Facility, 	Soledad 	(CTF).
2. 	Refusing 	to provide 	requested 	information that 	was
necessary and 	relevant 	to 	CCPOA's 	duty 	to 	represent 	its members.
3. 	Denying to 	its 	employees 	the 	right 	of
representation at 	the meet 	and 	confer 	sessions 	described 	in
paragraph No. 	1.
4. 	Denying to CCPOA the 	right 	to 	represent 	its members
in the meet and confer session(s) 	described in paragraph No. 	1.
B. 	TAKE 	THE 	FOLLOWING AFFIRMATIVE ACTIONS 	DESIGNED TO
EFFECTUATE THE 	POLICIES 	OF THE DILLS ACT:
1. 	Upon request by CCPOA, 	agree 	to meet and confer in
good 	faith with CCPOA on the 	subject 	of 	the 	effects 	of 	its March
1997 	reorganization plan at 	the 	CTF.

2. 	Provide all 	current 	staffing packages 	resulting
from the March 3, 	1997, 	reorganization at CTF to CCPOA.
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.
22