State of California (Department of Youth Authority) (PERB 1293S)

STATE 	OF 	CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF 	THE
PUBLIC 	EMPLOYMENT 	RELATIONS 	BOARD
CALIFORNIA STATE 	EMPLOYEES
ASSOCIATION,
Charging 	Party,
v.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA 	(DEPARTMENT
OF YOUTH AUTHORITY),
Respondent.
)
)
)
) 	Case No. 	SA-CE-1099-S
PERB Decision No. 	1293-S
October 	22, 	1998
)
))
)
)
)
)
Appearances; 	Howard Schwartz, 	for California State Employees
Association; 	State 	of California 	(Department of 	Personnel
Administration) 	by Wendi L. 	Ross, 	Labor Relations Counsel, 	for
State of 	California 	(Department of Youth Authority).
Before Dyer, 	Amador and Jackson, 	Members.
DECISION
AMADOR, 	Member: 	This 	case comes before the Public
Employment 	Relations 	Board 	(Board) 	on appeal by the 	California
State 	Employees Association 	(CSEA) 	to a Board agent's partial
dismissal 	(attached) 	of 	the unfair practice charge. 	The portion
of 	the 	charge at 	issue alleged that 	the 	State 	of 	California
(Department 	of Youth Authority) 	(State) 	violated section 3519(b)
and 	(c) 	of the Ralph C. 	Dills Act 	(Dills Act)1 when it refused to
1The Dills Act 	is 	codified at 	Government 	Code 	section 	3512
et seq. 	Section 3519 	states, 	in pertinent part:
It 	shall be unlawful 	for the 	state to do any
of 	the 	following:
(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

meet 	and 	confer 	over 	the 	decision 	to 	implement 	a new check-
in/check-out 	system.2
organization.
The Board has 	reviewed the 	entire 	record in this 	case,
including 	the 	Board agent's 	partial 	warning and dismissal
letters, 	the unfair practice charge, 	CSEA's appeal, 	and the
State's 	response. 	The Board 	finds 	the partial 	warning and
dismissal 	letters 	to be 	free of prejudicial 	error and, 	therefore,
adopts 	them as 	the decision of 	the 	Board 	itself.
ORDER
The partial 	dismissal 	of 	the unfair practice 	charge 	in Case
No. 	SA-CE-1099-S 	is hereby AFFIRMED.
Members 	Dyer and Jackson 	joined 	in 	this 	Decision.
2A complaint 	was 	issued 	regarding 	CSEA's 	allegation 	that 	the
State 	refused 	to meet 	and confer 	over 	the 	impacts 	of 	the
implementation of 	the 	system.
22

STATE OF CALIFORNIA 	PETE WILSON, Governor
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
Sacramento Regional Office
1031 18th Street, Room 102
Sacramento, CA 95814-4174
(916) 322-3198
PERS
July 29, 	1998
Maureen Lynch, 	Sr. LR Representative
California State Employees Association
1108 O Street
Sacramento, 	California 	95814
Re: 	California State Employees Association v. 	State of California
(California Youth Authority)
Unfair Practice Charge No. 	SA-CE-1099-S
PARTIAL DISMISSAL LETTER
Dear Ms. Lynch:
You filed the above-referenced charge on March 13, 	1998, 	alleging
violations of Government Code section 3519(c) 	and 	(b) . 	Specifically,
you have alleged a failure to bargain by the California Department of
Youth Authority 	(CYA or Department). 	We discussed this matter by
telephone in mid-April 	and you supplied further information.
I indicated to you, 	in my attached letter dated May 26, 	1998, 	that
certain allegations contained in the charge did not state a prima
facie case. 	You were advised that, 	if there were any factual
inaccuracies or additional 	facts which would correct the deficiencies
explained in that letter, 	you should amend the charge. 	You were
further advised that, 	unless you amended these allegations to state a
prima facie case or withdrew them prior to 	June 1, 	1998, 	the
allegations would be dismissed. 	You were granted an extension of time
to file an amended charge.
I received your amended charge in this matter on June 19, 	1998. 	We
discussed this matter by telephone on or about July 16, 	1998. 	As we
discussed, 	your amended charge 	supplied no information demonstrating
that 	the employer's new check-in/check-out 	system has an impact 	on the
length of the work day or duty-free time. 	Accordingly, 	the allegation
that the employer has violated its obligation to bargain by refusing
to meet and confer over the decision to implement the Bio-Sentenial
check-in/check-out 	system must be dismissed for reasons discussed in
my prior letter.
Right to Appeal
Pursuant to Public Employment Relations Board regulations, 	you may
obtain a review of this dismissal of certain allegations contained in
the charge by filing an appeal 	to the Board itself within twenty 	(20)
calendar days after service of this dismissal. 	(Cal. 	Code of Regs.,
tit. 	8, 	sec. 	32635(a).) 	To be timely filed, 	the original and five
copies of such appeal must be actually received by the Board itself
before the close of business 	(5 p.m.) 	or sent by telegraph, 	certified
or Express United States mail postmarked no later than the last date
set for filing. 	(Cal. Code of Regs., 	tit. 	8, 	sec. 32135.) 	Code of
Civil Procedure section 1013 	shall apply. 	The Board's address is:
=======-==-- 	--

SA-CE-1099-S
Partial Dismissal Letter
Page 2
Public Employment Relations Board
1031 18th Street
Sacramento, 	CA 95814
If you file a timely appeal of the refusal to issue a complaint, 	any
other party may file with the Board an original and five copies of a
statement in opposition within twenty 	(20) 	calendar days following the
date of service of the appeal. 	(Cal. 	Code of Regs., 	tit. 	8,
sec. 32635(b).)
Service
All documents authorized to be filed herein must also be 	"served" 	upon
all parties to the proceeding, 	and a "proof of service"
must 	accompany each copy of a document served upon a party or filed
with the Board itself. 	(See Cal. Code of Regs., 	tit. 8, 	sec. 32140
for the required contents and a sample form.) 	The document will be
considered properly 	"served" 	when personally delivered or deposited in
the first-class mail, 	postage paid and properly addressed.
Extension of Time
A request for an extension of time, 	in which to file a document with
the Board itself, 	must be in writing and filed with the Board at the
previously noted address. 	A request for an extension must be filed at
least three 	(3) 	calendar days before the expiration of the time
required for filing the document.
The request must indicate good cause for and, 	if known, 	the position
of each other party regarding the extension, 	and shall be accompanied
by proof of service of the request upon each party. 	(Cal. 	Code of
Regs., tit. 8, sec. 32132.)
Final Date
If no appeal is filed within the specified time limits, 	the dismissal
will become final when the time limits have expired.
Sincerely,
ROBERT THOMPSON
Deputy General 	Counsel
By BERNARD MCMONIGLE
Regional Attorney
Attachment
cc: 	Wendi Ross, DPA
BMC:eke

STATE OF CALIFORNIA 	PETE WILSON, Governor
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD 	.
Sacramento Regional Office
1031 18th Street, Room 102
Sacramento, CA 95814-4174
(916) 322-3198
PERD
May 	2 6 , 	1998
Maureen Lynch, 	Sr. 	LR Representative
California State Employees Association
1108 O Street
Sacramento, 	California 	95814
Re: 	California State Employees Association v. 	State of
California 	(California 	Youth Authority)
Unfair Practice Charge No. 	SA-CE-1099-S
WARNING 	LETTER
Dear Ms. Lynch:
You filed the above-referenced charge on March 13, 	1998, 	alleging
violations of Government Code section 3519 (c) 	and 	(b) .
Specifically, 	you have alleged a failure to bargain by the
California Department of Youth Authority 	(CYA or Department). 	We
discussed this matter by telephone 	in mid-April 	and you supplied
further information.
On June 30, 	1997, 	the California State Employees Association
(CSEA or Union) 	received a letter from CYA which stated that 	it
planned to install 	a new check-in/check-out 	system at 	the
Department's eleven institutions. 	That 	letter also invited CSEA
to discuss any impact 	associated with the 	check-in system with
CYA. 	Later, 	CSEA was 	informed the system had been delayed, 	but
it would receive another notice.
On February 13, 	1998, 	CSEA received a notice regarding the new
check-in/check-out system; 	it was ready for installation.
Your charge 	states that 	in the letter CYA said it 	"would not
negotiate with CSEA over the decision or the 	impact of this new
system." 	However, 	a reading of the letter 	(dated February 10,
1998, 	from Timothy J. 	Mahoney to Tut Tate) 	reveals no such
refusal to bargain. 	It does state that the June 27, 	1997 notice
letter has been withdrawn and that 	CYA considers 	the 	system to be
a routine upgrading. 	The 	letter invites 	CSEA representatives 	to
a March 9, 	1998, 	demonstration and question and answer session
regarding the new system and also states,
following a successful activation at NYCRCC,
the remaining institutions will begin
installation and activation of 	the 	system.
As this occurs, 	local CSEA representatives
will be 	invited to a system demonstration and
a question and answer session will 	follow to

SA-CE-1099-S
Warning Letter
Page 2
address any issues of 	the remaining
institutions.
Your charge also states 	that 	CYA has a past practice of noticing
and negotiation with CSEA 	"on matters 	concerning check-in/check-
out procedures."
A letter of February 18, 	1998, 	to Timothy Mahoney from senior
labor relations representative, 	Bill Kelly of CSEA states that,
I 	definitely disagree 	that 	the new system is
simply an upgrading of 	the existing check-in
and check-out 	system. 	This new system is a
major change in working conditions and the
department has an obligation to meet and
confer with the union over the change.
Kelly then asked for Mahoney to arrange 	a 	"meet 	and confer."
On April 13, 	1998, 	Mahoney forwarded a letter to yourself and
Kelly regarding the 	lack of agreement on the need for a 	"meet and
confer" 	over the 	implementation of the system. 	The 	letter refers
to 	a meeting in which you were 	asked how the 	system changed terms
and conditions of employment which required negotiations.
According to Mahoney, 	you presented no impact issues.
From your charge, 	as well as the February 18, 	1998 	letter from
Bill 	Kelly to Timothy Mahoney it appears 	that CSEA requested to
bargain over the decision to change 	the 	check-in/check-out
system. 	There are no specific 	impact 	issues over which
negotiations were requested.
In Inglewood Unified School District 	(1987) 	PERB Decision No.
624, 	the Board determined that a check-in/check-out system
implemented for security purposes is not within the mandatory
scope of bargaining unless 	the union can demonstrate 	that 	the
system has an impact 	on length of the workday or duty-free 	time.
You have provided no facts demonstrating such impact.
Accordingly, 	your allegation that the employer violated its
obligation to bargain by refusing to bargain over the decision
must 	be dismissed.
Your charge also 	indicates 	that you wished to bargain over
impact. 	However, 	you have provided no facts which show a
bargaining demand over identified impact 	issues. 	The employer's
letter to you of April 	13, 	1998, 	indicates that CSEA was asked to
identify impact 	issues. 	A general 	request 	to negotiate 	that 	does
not 	specify intended subjects of bargaining does not 	constitute
an adequate demand and does not 	trigger the 	employer's duty to
bargain. 	(Newman-Crows Landing Unified School District 	(1982)
'(

SA-CE-1099-S
Warning Letter
Page 3
PERB Decision No. 	223.) 	Because you have not demonstrated that
the 	employer refused to bargain over any impact 	issues, 	this
allegation must 	also be dismissed.
For these reasons the charge, 	as presently written, 	does not
state a prima facie case. 	If there are any factual 	inaccuracies
in this 	letter or additional 	facts which would correct 	the
deficiencies explained above, 	please amend the charge. 	The
amended charge 	should be prepared on a standard PERB unfair
practice charge 	form, 	clearly labeled First Amended Charge,
contain all the 	facts and allegations you wish to make, 	and
be 	signed under penalty of perjury by the 	charging party. 	The
amended charge must have the case number written on the top right
hand corner of the charge 	form. 	The amended charge must be
served on the respondent's representative and the original proof
of service must be filed with PERB. 	If I do not receive an
amended charge or withdrawal from you before June 1, 	1998, 	I
shall dismiss your charge. 	If you have any questions, 	please
call me at 	(916) 	322-3198, 	extension 355.
Sincerely,
BERNARD MCMONIGLE
Regional Attorney
BMC:eke