SEBA President

           I am re-circulating this article with some additional information because I recently received a few complaints from members claiming that their Probation Corrections Supervisor I and II asked to meet with Probation Corrections Officers (PCO’s) and started to ask questions which they knew, that depending on their answer, could lead to discipline. The first member that called stated that the PCO’s interviewed were new and afraid, or did not know to ask for representation.

           The new PCO’s may have been afraid to assert their right to representation, but their complaint that they did not know they could ask for representation was incorrect because both myself and Nancy Tate conduct orientations for new PCO’s and inform them of their to right to representation. We always tell the new PCO’s to state to their supervisor, “If my answering your questions could lead to discipline then I would like to have a representative present.” Remember, it is not the interviewer’s obligation to inform you that you have a right to representation. You have to assert this right and they should stop the interview to allow you to contact a representative.

           The PCO’s were upset that the supervisors did this. I agree that in my four years with SEBA, this is the first time this issue has come up. Normally Professional Standards conducts the interviews, not facility supervisors. By having Professional Standards conduct the investigations, the employee is put on notice that this is an official interview and allows the PCO time to contact their representative. I received complaints from both West Valley and the High Desert Juvenile Hall Detention and Assessment Center. I don’t know why this change occurred, if it was management’s decision or if the supervisors decided to conduct the investigations on their own. I will try to find out why this change in procedure and report back to you in the next issue of the Star & Shield.

           When is a member entitled to union representation? The member is entitled to union representation when he or she is asked to meet with his or her supervisor/superior and the purpose of the meeting is to obtain information which may later be used to take disciplinary action against the member. For example, a citizen files a complaint against a member. A supervisor is assigned to interview the member to determine if he or she did in fact act inappropriately. The member is entitled to union representation because if the results of the interview support the citizen’s complaint, adverse action may be taken against the employee.

           What constitutes a disciplinary action? Disciplinary action refers to a formal adverse action and includes dismissal, demotion, reduction of pay, suspension with pay, or an official reprimand. A formal letter of instruction, correction or warning from a supervisor is not considered disciplinary action, but corrective in nature.

           Many times a member will call me because he or she has received a letter of instruction, correction or warning. The member wants to know if they should sign it even though they don’t agree with the contents of the letter. I always recommend the member sign. The member may write on the letter of instruction, correction or warning that their signature does not constitute agreement with the contents. The member is only acknowledging receipt of the letter, and if it applies, the member should indicate that a rebuttal will be submitted. If you disagree with the letter you should submit a rebuttal. The rebuttal is not meant to change the supervisor’s mind, but it is there for anyone to see in reviewing your file. These letters of instruction, correction or warning always seem to portray the member in a negative light, so by submitting a rebuttal a reviewer gets to hear your side of the story, and come to their own conclusion as to the weight to be given the letter.

           Members are not entitled to have a representative present during routine business communications that occur between a supervisor and employee such as performance evaluations, training, job audits, counseling sessions and work- related instructions. Members who do not agree with the contents or ratings of their performance evaluations may submit a rebuttal.

           Members should be aware that a meeting between the supervisor and employee could begin as routine business communications and during the meeting the discussion could shift such that it becomes investigatory in nature. If you find that happening to you, ask your supervisor if the information obtained during the meeting could lead to adverse action. If the question is answered in the affirmative, ask that the discussion/meeting be rescheduled so that you have time to contact a SEBA representative. If your request is denied, continue with the meeting, but let the supervisor know that you are answering the questions under duress. Contact SEBA as soon as possible after the meeting. SEBA will do everything possible to right the wrong.

Please feel free to call your field representative if you have any concerns regarding this issue. However, in the absence of time, follow the order, then contact your field representative and we can assist you if there is a grievance to be filed.