California Legal Brief

The Rule of Department of Human Resources v. California Correctional Peace Officers Association is that an arbitrator does not exceed their powers by issuing an award that offsets an SPB-approved disciplinary suspension when the award is based on violations of the Dills Act and MOU protections for union activity, under circumstances where the SPB reviewed the disciplinary action for cause under the Civil Service Act while the arbitrator separately reviewed whether the same discipline constituted unlawful retaliation for protected activities.

Appeal from judgment after petition to vacate arbitration award in Superior Court, Sacramento County.

Defendant Appellant was California Correctional Peace Officers Association — the union representing correctional officer Lopez who grieved disciplinary action under the MOU.

Plaintiff Respondent was Department of Human Resources — the state agency that suspended Lopez for posting disciplinary materials on a union bulletin board.

The suit sounded in labor arbitration and petition to vacate arbitration award. CDCR petitioned to vacate or correct the arbitration award while CCPOA counter-petitioned to confirm it.

The key substantive facts leading to the suit were Lopez, a correctional officer and union representative, received discipline for using profanity toward two officers, then posted excerpts of the disciplinary materials on a union bulletin board that revealed the surnames of the reporting officers. CDCR suspended Lopez for 60 workdays, claiming the posting fostered a "code of silence." Lopez appealed to the SPB (which upheld the suspension) and filed a grievance under the MOU alleging retaliation for protected union activity. An arbitrator found the discipline violated the MOU and Dills Act protections, ordering CDCR to rescind the suspension and provide backpay.

The procedural result leading to the Appeal: The trial court denied CDCR's petition to vacate the arbitration award and CCPOA's counter petition to confirm the award, but granted CDCR's petition to correct the award by striking the portions ordering rescission of the disciplinary action and make-whole relief, ruling that the arbitrator exceeded her powers by interfering with the SPB's constitutional authority to review disciplinary actions.

The key question(s) on Appeal: Whether the arbitrator exceeded her powers by entering an award that violated public policy by interfering with the SPB's constitutional duty to review disciplinary actions under Article VII, Section 3(a) of the California Constitution or by undermining efforts to combat the code of silence.

The Appellate Court held the arbitrator did not exceed her powers because: (1) the award did not contravene the explicit public policy that the SPB must review disciplinary actions since the SPB actually did review the action under the Civil Service Act while the arbitrator separately reviewed it under the Dills Act for retaliatory motive; (2) overlapping adjudications by different agencies addressing different legal frameworks do not necessarily conflict; and (3) CDCR failed to establish that any public policy against the code of silence requires specific disciplinary penalties such that the offsetting award violated that policy.

The case is inapplicable when the arbitrator's award would actually prevent the SPB from reviewing disciplinary actions under the Civil Service Act, when an MOU allows employees to bypass SPB review entirely in favor of arbitration, or when the arbitrator reviews the same legal issues under the same legal framework as the SPB rather than addressing separate statutory violations.

The case leaves open the question of who should have the final word when the SPB and an arbitrator reach overlapping adjudications regarding the same disciplinary action, and what specific standards should govern "administrative accommodation" or "sensitive application of evolving judicial principles" to resolve such conflicts.