The following correspondence was sent from
AOCDS General manager Mark Nichols to Orange
County CEO Thomas Mauk and Acting Orange
County Sheriff Jack Anderson.
February 19,
2008
County Executive Officer Thomas Mauk
Acting Sheriff Jack
Anderson
Dear C.E.O. Mauk and Acting Sheriff
Anderson:
It has come to the attention of AOCDS that
the Acting Sheriff is taking the position
that the use of non-sworn employees to
replace our members in the jail system is
not subject to the meet and confer
requirement of Government Code Section 3500,
et seq. As has been previously explained to
him, he is wrong about the requirements of
the law.
In 1986, the California Supreme Court
decided the issue in the case of Building
Material and Construction Teamsters Union,
Local 216 v. Farrell, as Controller
(1986) 41 Cal.3d 651. The Court held that
employers must bargain on action to transfer
duties performed by members of a bargaining
unit to a job title in another unit. The
Court cited, with approval, numerous state
and federal cases discussing variations on
the concept and left no doubt about the
County’s obligation to meet and confer on
the Acting Sheriff’s proposal. It is
necessary to negotiate about the change.
However, the issue of whether negotiations
take place is governed by the Memorandum of
Understanding between the County and
AOCDS. Article XXIII of the MOU provides
that, during the term of the agreement, the
parties may negotiate with respect to any
matter within the scope of representation
“only upon mutual agreement”
(emphasis added). Therefore, absent the
agreement of the Association, this is not a
matter that can be addressed. The
Association has not indicated a
willingness to agree to negotiate at this
time.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
Mark Nichols
General Manager - AOCDS
