Guadalupe city employees were suddenly informed last year that they would no longer be eligible for merit-based salary step increases. Now the city is fighting an unfair practices charge filed by union representatives of those employees, and both parties are awaiting a judge’s decision on the case.
The complaint, which is being handled by the California Public Employment Relations Board, was filed recently by Santa Barbara-based field representatives of Service Employees International Union (SEIU) Local 620, a workers union that represents 11 Guadalupe city employees.
In the complaint, SEIU claims that Guadalupe City Administrator Cruz Ramos unfairly denied salary advancements that were due to two city employees, and suspended the possibility of merit-based salary increases for all employees in June 2017 without prior notice.
In an email sent to Guadalupe city employees on June 14, 2017, Ramos wrote that “in lieu of ‘furloughs’ there will be no step increases this upcoming fiscal year due to a continuing budget deficit.”
Ramos wrote that the decision was an effort to take control the city’s spending, reduce its long-standing $700,000 deficit, and help pay the ever-increasing yearly costs of California Public Employees Retirement System (CalPERS) contributions. She also wrote that the city would continue working to find other ways to reduce expenses and address its financial shortfalls.
“The city regrets this action,” she wrote, “as our employees are all hard-working, dedicated employees.”
SEIU field representative Robert MacLeod said that while the city is legally obligated to notify all employees of upcoming contractual changes to their salaries or terms of employment, Guadalupe officials failed to do that, and also failed to “meet and confer in good faith” with employees once the announcement was made. Instead of meeting with the union and its members, negotiating, and outlining the upcoming changes, MacLeod said Guadalupe simply “acted unilaterally.”
“Which,” he said, “we feel is a violation of our contract with them and several laws.”
The change itself also directly defies the city’s memorandum of understanding with SEIU employees, MacLeod said, which gives employees the right to be considered for salary step increases based on yearly performance and merit assessments. The city’s memorandum of understanding with SEIU, a copy of which was included in SEIU’s complaint, clearly lists a several-step salary increase process for employees deemed satisfactory by their supervisors.
But according to the complaint, two employees, account clerk Esther Britt and wastewater treatment plant manager Carlos Ostos, were denied due wage advancements about a month after Guadalupe’s June 2017 email announcement, which MacLeod said was the city’s only official notification of the changes to the SEIU.
Four more employees will be denied increases this year if the city’s decision stands, according to the complaint.
The case went to a California Public Employment Relations Board hearing recently, and closing comments were heard a few weeks ago, MacLeod said. The city and SEIU are waiting for a judge’s decision, which MacLeod said will likely come sometime after the new year.
The union is seeking a simple remedy, MacLeod said. Representatives want Guadalupe city employees deserving of salary increases to be granted them retroactively—regardless of whether or not the city can afford it—and all employees to be considered for merit-based increases in the future. Based on the hearing, MacLeod said things are looking up for SEIU employees.
“I’m very optimistic we will get some kind of award,” MacLeod said.
Although Guadalupe City Administrator Ramos did not respond to the Sun’s request for comment, Guadalupe City Council members met in closed session to discuss the case on Nov. 5. Guadalupe City Attorney Philip Sinco addressed the case in a statement to the Sun on Nov. 16.
“The city and SEIU participated in a hearing on SEIU’s allegations before an administrative hearing office in September, and are awaiting a decision from the administrative hearing officer,” he wrote. “Since this matter has not been concluded, the city has no further comment.”
Staff Writer Kasey Bubnash can be reached at kbubnash@santamariasun.com.
This article appears in Nov 29 – Dec 6, 2018.