In the News
Spring 2007 Labor Bulletin | Spring 2006 Labor Bulletin | PORAC Legal Defense Fund Decisions | Yolo Jury Finds Former Campus Officer 'Not Guilty' [pdf] | Deputies Union Files Suit Against Sheriff | Fall 2005 Labor Bulletin | Spring 2005 Labor Bulletin | Fall 2004 Labor Bulletin | Spring 2004 Labor Bulletin | Fall 2003 Labor Bulletin | Spring 2003 Labor Bulletin | Fall 2002 Labor Bulletin
Spring 2007 Labor Bulletin
Spring 2006 Labor Bulletin
PORAC Legal Defense Fund Decisions
Judge Dismisses Dishonesty Charge and Suppresses Illegal Interview After Finding Department Violated Officer's POBR Rights
West Sacramento Officer Acquitted
Grand Jury Declines to Indict Manteca's "MCOPS"
Judge Grants Motion to Set Aside Indictments Against San Joaquin Officers Accused of Excessive Force
South Lake Tahoe Police Officer Acquitted of Assault Under Color of Authority Charge
Deputies Union Files Suit Against Sheriff
William Ferchland, wferchland@tahoedailytribune.com
January 17, 2007
A lawsuit was filed against the sheriff of El Dorado County on behalf of the department's employee union, citing changes in deputy's hours and wages violated a California government code.
In November, department personnel notified Don Atkinson, president of the El Dorado County Deputy Sheriffs' Association, that three staff positions would be eliminated. The positions were detective sergeant, detective and a search-and-rescue coordinator with the Office of Emergency Services.
Along with other changes, the new policy also removed the sergeant assigned to the summer boating unit and the sergeant tied to the search-and-rescue team.
Submitted last week by attorney Kathleen Mastagni, El Dorado County Superior Court Judge Daniel Proud said a response should be filed by the county by Jan. 22. The suit requested staffing returns to the previous levels and positions. Another request has stated signs should be posted at county buildings detailing workers' rights under the government code section.
Ed Knapp, chief assistant in the county's counsel office, declined comment. The county's Board of Supervisors will provide direction on how to handle the lawsuit at next week's meeting, Knapp said.
Neves could not be reached for comment. In an interview last month, Neves said the changes and reassignments were made to increase deputies on patrol, thus increasing public safety. The association was told of the moves and the county's attorney was consulted before the changes were implemented, Neves said at the time.
"There were movements made for the efficiency and service of the sheriff's office in our primary role as patrol officers, and patrol officers respond to law-enforcement needs in the county," Neves said last month.
A visiting judge could head the proceeding if the case is not settled quickly.
Atkinson said he tried several times to meet with Neves to talk about the proposed changes but was denied. In an early interview he said the changes were retaliation against the association. The suit stated three of the four employees being reassigned are members of the employee association's board of directors.
"The (employee association) board members alleged the (South Lake Tahoe) office was not receiving support from the Placerville office and discussed the lack of effort and support from the captains and lieutenants in the Placerville office," the suit stated.
Not only did the changes, which took place Nov. 25, remove jobs that lower-level employees would strive to obtain, but "resulted in widespread labor unrest and significantly damaged the morale of the department," the suit stated.
The reassignment plan took effect Nov. 25.
California Government Code section 3505.
The governing body of a public agency, or such boards, commissions, administrative officers or other representatives as may be properly designated by law or by such governing body, shall meet and confer in good faith regarding wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment with representatives of such recognized employee organizations, as defined in subdivision (b) of Section 3501, and shall consider fully such presentations as are made by the employee organization on behalf of its members prior to arriving at a determination of policy or course of action.
"Meet and confer in good faith" means that a public agency, or such representatives as it may designate, and representatives of recognized employee organizations, shall have the mutual obligation personally to meet and confer promptly upon request by either party and continue for a reasonable period of time in order to exchange freely information, opinions, and proposals, and to endeavor to reach agreement on matters within the scope of representation prior to the adoption by the public agency of its final budget for the ensuing year. The process should include adequate time for the resolution of impasses where specific procedures for such resolution are contained in local rule, regulation, or ordinance, or when such procedures are utilized by mutual consent.
Source: California Law