On March 1, 2023, the County of San Bernardino’s Chief Probation Officer, Tracy Reece, announced that probation officers would be placed on 30-day rotations in juvenile detention facilities due to staffing shortages and safety concerns following a violent incident at the ARISE facility on February 25, 2023. The San Bernardino County Probation Officers Association objected, arguing the assignment constituted a unilateral change in working conditions and demanded bargaining. Despite meetings and negotiations, the County proceeded with the rotations, initially limiting assignments to POs with prior detention experience and offering training for others.
The parties entered into a Side Letter Agreement on June 23, 2023, which provided double-time pay for POs working extra shifts in detention facilities beyond their regular hours. The agreement was temporary, set to expire on December 29, 2023, and included a provision for meet-and-confer discussions 45 days prior to expiration if an extension was needed. When the Side Letter expired, the County continued assigning POs to detention facilities for one day per pay period but ceased the double-time pay. The Association filed an unfair practice charge on January 2, 2024, alleging the County unlawfully continued the assignments post-expiration without bargaining.
An ALJ from the California P dismissed the charge, addressing two main allegations. First, the claim that the March 2023 assignment decision was a unilateral change was deemed untimely. T he six-month statute of limitations for f iling a charge began on March 1, 2023, when the Association learned of the County’s decision, but the charge was f iled over nine months later. The ALJ rejected the Association’s argument that the limitations period began in April 2023 when rotations were implemented, noting the County’s clear intent was communicated in March.
Second, the ALJ dismissed the claim that the post-December 2023 continuation of assignments violated the Side Letter. The ALJ interpreted the Side Letter’s plain language, concluding it only governed double-time pay for extra shifts, not the underlying assignment of POs to detention facilities. T he phrase “Temporary Emergency Detention Coverage” referred solely to the compensation arrangement, not the assignments themselves. Thus, the County’s continuation of assignments after the Side Letter’s expiration did not deviate from its terms.
San Bernadino County, 49 PERC ¶ 166 (CA PERB 2025).