OPINION AND - California Correctional Peace Officers Association

More documents

Recommendations

Info

In particular cases, exceptions may be made when compelled by lloperational needs of the Department. 'Iz The State argues that history, both at the 'bargaining table and in practice, creates a broader exclusion - all non- institutional employees except those in standby re - entry. 3 The State s argument would turn the language of Section 13.05 on its head. In effect, it would mdify the language to read as follows: llInstitutional and standby re- entry employeesI1 shall be assigned voluntary overtime by seniority pursuant to Sections 13.05 (a) and (b) and Section 11.17, except for staff in camps who shall be 2Exceptions may also be made when there is an emergency. The parties agreed that the facts in this case did not rise to that level. 3Sometime in 1984 or 1985, the State established half-way houses called re-entry facilities. They were located in comnunities throughout the State for parolees to reside in. One or two rank- and-file Parole Agent 11s on standby were on-call status and would be assigned to each facility to respond to any incidents which arose. Obviously the amunt of overtine available increased as the number of these re-ent facilities increased. Parole Agent 11s were so heavily burd en3 tbat it became necessary for the Department to select Parole Agent Is for assignment. The method of selection varied around the State from strict seniority or sane kind of rotation system, to a favoritism system. Predictably, many grievances were filed. The outcome was that the State and the Union agreed that volwntq avertime by seniority should be applied. The elaborate system agreed upon is set forth in Section 11.17 in Joint Exhibit 1 and in Section 11.16 in Joint Exhibit 2.
assigned overtime pursuant to Section 13.05(c). The remnants of historical and practiced evidence in this record fall short of presenting a body of coherent facts sufficient to justify such a substantial rewriting of the contractual language, particularly language which in terms I do not find ambiguous. My job is to interpret the language, not to rewrite it. The State points to the reference in Section 13.05(b) to ft~ardens/Superintendents. It It directs them to devise a sign-up procedure for voluntary overtime creating rosters from which assignments shall be made. Apparently the State's argument is that the specification of institutional procedures means that non-institutional overtime is excluded. If this is the meaning, why does the following section ( 13 . 05 (c).) exclude only "staff in camps " If the exclusion was intended to be broader than that, why didn't the parties say so The elaborate procedure for assigning overtime for re- entry standby personnel prescribed by Section 11.17 does not help the State either. The fact that a prescription
Page 1 and 2: In the Matter of a Contruv@rsy Betw
Page 3 and 4: The sole issue submitted to the Arb
Page 5 and 6: Article 4.01 (a): "Except as acpres
Page 7 and 8: Joseph Kim1 and Ralph Duenas are lo
Page 9 and 10: * The applicant is a non-smoker * L
Page 11 and 12: UNIQN The Union argues that the pla
Page 13 and 14: The management rights language cont
Page 15: The first question is whether the c
Page 19 and 20: obligation under 19.01(b) - viz., t
Page 21 and 22: eligibility under the 35 mile rule,
Page 23 and 24: in order to function properly as Pa
Page 25 and 26: surveillance agent in the Singleton

OPINION AND - California Correctional Peace Officers Association

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?