PERB files complaints against Deputy Sheriffs' Association, Placer County

As negotiations between Placer County and the Deputy Sheriffs' Association (DSA) continue, the California Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) has issued complaints against each side. A complaint was filed against the county on March 23. The complaint issued by PERB states "Respondent (Placer County) failed and refused to meet and confer in good faith with Charging Party (DSA)" and "derivatively interfered with the rights of bargaining unit employees to be represented by Charging Party." Reasons listed within the complaint include the alleged actions of no consideration of the factfinding report during the Sept. 14, 2021, hearing, the repeal of the Measure F formula, which was used in determining deputies' base salary, and the county's unfair practice charge filing against the association. The DSA filed an unfair practice charge Sept. 24, 2020, amended Feb. 24, 2021, alleging the county violated its duty to bargain in good faith regarding deputies' pay and benefits. The DSA requested factfinding through PERB in October 2020 after the county declared an impasse following the DSA's rejection of the county's July 2020 last, best and final offer, according to legal documents. The county also filed an unfair practice charge against the DSA on March 19, 2020, alleging the association failed to bargain in good faith. The PERB factfinding report, released in August 2021, stated there was no establishment the continuation of Measure F would result in uncontrolled or unsustainable costs and submitting a ballot measure for Measure F would be in the best interest for the public and both parties. Measure F, previously Placer County Code section 3.12.040, determined the maximum salaries of similar positions in Sacramento, Nevada and El Dorado counties to calculate the average of those salaries to set a salary at an equal level for compensation. On Sept. 14, 2021, the Placer County Board of Supervisors approved Ordinance 6104-B, which imposes the county's proposal of salary increases, amending incentive pay from percentage to flat amount and providing Tahoe Branch Assignment Pay for deputies who live within 50 driving miles of the Burton Creek Substation to offset housing costs in the Lake Tahoe area. The parties have been in negotiations since March 2018. Now that a complaint has been issued, DSA Attorney David Mastagni said PERB will likely set a settlement conference and then an evidentiary hearing. According to the PERB website, the conference will assist the parties in reaching a settlement. If a settlement cannot be reached, then a formal hearing will be scheduled, which could result in an administrative law judge issuing a proposed written decision. "The issuance of a complaint means that if conduct is established at the hearing, legally it constitutes an unfair labor practice," Mastagni said in an email to the Auburn Journal. The Journal reached out to the county regarding the PERB-issued complaint, and the county provided the following statement: "The Placer County Board of Supervisors has been negotiating in good faith to reach agreement with the Deputy Sheriffs' Association (DSA) since 2018. During this extended period, both parties have alleged the other has not bargained appropriately. The Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) serves to assist parties in resolving such disputes and the DSA is free to pursue these remedies. Indeed, the county has also sought PERB's intervention, which resulted in a complaint being issued against the deputy sheriffs on November 15, 2021. This update is yet another step in a lengthy and expensive administrative process. "At the heart of this matter is the deputy sheriffs' desire to receive automatic raises each year in perpetuity without agreeing to a labor contract. The Board of Supervisors cannot and will not abdicate its duty to make responsible fiscal decisions on behalf of the taxpayers in this manner. The board is eager to reach an agreement with the DSA, however, and has offered raises of nearly 9 percent over two years as a show of continued good faith. The board maintains its steadfast commitment to public safety in Placer County and looks forward to resolving this matter in negotiations with the DSA to the benefit of its employees and residents." PERB also filed a complaint against the DSA on Nov. 16, 2021. The complaint states, "Respondent (DSA) failed and refused to meet and confer in good faith with Charging Party (Placer County)" and "committed an unfair practice." Reasons listed within the complaint include the alleged actions of no formal counterproposals regarding base salary were made, no objections raised over a July 21, 2020, list of tentative agreements and the DSA not wanting to "move away from the parties' previous Memorandum of Understanding's formula" (Measure F)." Mastagni said the complaint against the DSA is a factual dispute on the allegation of whether the association countered and if there were tentative agreements, and the complaint against the county deals with an allegation of conduct that constitutes an unfair labor practice. "It's not a final decision," Mastagni said. "What it's saying is that taking the allegations that you're making factually as true, these constitute violations of the law and so a complaint's issued. Then we have the right to have a hearing on that." According to Mastagni, the complaints are being considered by different judges and the settlement conference for the complaint filed against the DSA is scheduled for early May. The conference for the complaint against the county is to be determined. Mastagni said he has requested the hearings be consolidated into one proceeding. The DSA also filed a writ of mandate against Placer due to the county adopting Ordinance 6104-B and repealing Measure F without submitting it to the voters. Mastagni confirmed the PERB action is separate from the lawsuit and the PERB hearings will proceed regardless of the writ hearing outcome, which has been continued to April 7. "Even if we win on absolutely everything, then we still don't have a contract or an agreement," Mastagni said. "We still have to go back and bargain with the county and try to get an agreement. So, I mean, at some point, they've got to decide that they want to get an agreement with us." Mastagni confirmed the DSA still hopes for a "fair contract that respects the will of the voters as reflected in Measure F."