SAN FRANCISCO DSA WINS COMPENSATORY TIME ARBITRATION AWARD By Will M. Yamada After more than a year of protracted negotiations and multiple arbitrations, the San Francisco DSA and Mastagni, Holstedt & Amick have obtained an arbitration award entitling DSA members to use accrued compensatory time off (CTO) without unreasonable restrictions sought by the employer. The DSA and the County of San Francisco entered into a two-year collective bargaining agreement lasting between July 1, 2003 and June 30, 2005. Part of the collective bargaining agreement included a provision governing the use of compensatory time off. Under this provision, “employees shall give the Department 48 hours notice of a request to use compensatory time off and the Department shall grant permission to use compensatory time off if doing so will not unduly disrupt the operation of the department.” Soon after the contract went into effect, however, the Sheriff’s Department began to deny deputies’ requests to use CTO. After several failed “meet and confer” sessions, the DSA filed a grievance over this constant denial of CTO. County Refused to Comply with First Grievance Arbitration Award On December 13, 2003, the first arbitration was heard regarding the denial of the use of compensatory time. At issue in the arbitration was the interpretation of the term “unduly disrupt.” The Employer claimed the right to deny the use of compensatory time whenever granting CTO would incur overtime expenses to cover the employee using compensatory time. The DSA argued it had negotiated the provision to permit the use of CTO so long as the request was made 48 hours in advance. Furthermore, the DSA argued, consistent with federal law, that incurring overtime is not an “undue disruption” justifying the denial of compensatory time off requests. On March 15, 2004, the arbitrator rendered an award in favor of the DSA and ordered the parties to meet and confer to tailor an agreement consistent with the award permitting DSA members to use compensatory time. Yet the Sheriff and the DSA were unable to reach agreement on how to implement the award because the Sheriff attempted during the subsequent negotiations to add new restrictions regarding the use of compensatory time. At times, the Sheriff even threatened to cancel all compensatory time. Grievance Returns to Arbitration; County Again Refuses to Abide by Award After several “meet and confer” sessions, the parties again referred the matter back to the arbitrator to attempt a final resolution of the issue. The parties used a mediation/arbitration format in this second hearing. At the end of the day, the parties agreed on certain proposals regarding the use of compensatory time and agreed to submit several disputed items to the arbitrator for final resolution. Following the second arbitration, however, the Sheriff again declined to abide by the agreed-upon terms. The DSA requested the arbitrator issue an award enforcing the terms agreed upon at the July 29th session. On August 9, 2004, the arbitrator issued a partial award ordering the employer to implement the provisions agreed upon at the July 29th arbitration. After this award was rendered, the employer finally implemented these provisions allowing DSA members to use compensatory time off. The only remaining issue was whether the employer had the right to impose restrictions on employees who used compensatory time. The Sheriff wanted to preclude employees who used CTO from also working overtime in the same two week pay period. The DSA objected to this proposal as violating other portions of the contract and unfairly punishing employees who use compensatory time. The parties submitted arbitration briefs on this matter. On October 7, 2004 the arbitrator issued an award in favor of the DSA and denied the employer’s proposed restrictions on using compensatory time. The DSA employees are now being allowed to use compensatory time off as they had negotiated in the contract. This is a substantial benefit to all DSA members who now have the flexibility to use this time off they have rightfully earned. Will M. Yamada represented the San Francisco DSA in the second arbitration proceeding. Mr. Yamada is a former union organizer and was a law clerk at the National Labor Relations Board and the California Teachers Association before joining Mastagni, Holstedt & Amick as a labor attorney.