print logo
Main Content Anchor

DPA Case Number 98-C-0034 - Appeal from Layoff

Final Non-Precedential Decision Adopted: March 17, 1998
By: K. William Curtis, DPA Chief Counsel

DECISION

This matter came on regularly for hearing before Mary C. Bowman, Hearing Officer, Department of Personnel Administration (DPA), at San Luis Obispo, California, at 10:30 a.m. on March 10, 1998.
Appellant was present without representation.
Ronald B. Wright, Labor Relations Analyst represented the Department of Water Resources (DWR), respondent.

I - JURISDICTION

On November 26, 1997, respondent served appellant with a notice of layoff effective January 30, 1998. On December 11, 1997, appellant filed an appeal from layoff. The notice and appeal comply with the procedural requirements of Government Code sections 19997 through 19997.14.
The DPA has jurisdiction over appeals from layoff. Pursuant to the applicable memorandum of understanding (MOU) between the State of California and the California State Employees Association, the Hearing Officer's decision shall be final and upon its issuance, DPA shall adopt the decision as its own.1

II - EMPLOYMENT HISTORY

On September 13, 1993, appellant was appointed to the position of Word Processing Technician with the Department of Water Resources and was assigned to the Coastal Project Headquarters at San Luis Obispo. She had been previously employed by the State of California with the Department of Parks and Recreation and the Department of Transportation.

III - CAUSE FOR APPEAL

Appellant protested her layoff on the grounds that required procedures had not been complied with and that it was otherwise improper. Specifically, she alleged that she had been forced out of her position by an improper transfer in July 1997 which caused stress, that the required notification had not been provided her for the transfer and layoff, that other employees subject to layoff were successfully placed in other agency positions and she was not, and that a permanent-intermittent employee remained at work after she was laid off.

IV - STATEMENT OF FACTS

In July 1993 the respondent opened facilities in San Luis Obispo, Arroyo Grande and Shandon, California, to complete its Coastal Project. The headquarters for the three offices was designated as San Luis Obispo. The other two offices were field offices. The project was to design and construct water transfer facilities in the counties adjacent to San Luis Obispo. It was expected to take three and one-half years to complete.
Eighty positions were created to staff the new offices. (The nearest permanent office was in Lancaster, approximately three to four hours away.) Employees were hired for the new offices on a permanent basis because the project was expected to last in excess of two years. Appellant was one of the employees hired to work in the San Luis Obispo Office.
Sometime in June 1996, employees in the Division of Engineering, including the employees working in San Luis Obispo, were notified by management that the Coastal Project was moving towards completion and its completion would result in the closure of the Coastal offices including San Luis Obispo, Shandon and Arroyo Grande. Respondent held meetings with affected employees. The meetings were in Sacramento and in San Luis Obispo. Respondent took other steps to find employees positions in other departments and other locations. The expected closure date was approximately one year away.
On March 17, 1997, respondent issued a Job Opportunity Bulletins, which identified surplus positions and stated:
"... as a result of decreasing workload in the Division of Engineering, all vacant engineering and related technical ... positions shall be filled internally through transfers or promotions of existing departmental staff. Further, in accordance with the Director's memorandum of September 14, 1995, managers and supervisors are strongly encouraged to hire from within the Division of Engineering."
The appellant's classification was one of those designated as approved by DPA as having "surplus/SROA eligibility." Appellant was accordingly placed on the SROA list.
On March 25, 1997, respondent mailed a memorandum to all State Personnel Officers advising them of the surplus and seeking assistance in placement.
Appellant did not obtain employment elsewhere. Many employees did.
The Coastal Project Offices were closed, as scheduled in the following order: Shandon - August 31, 1997, Arroyo Grande - October 23, 1997, and San Luis Obispo - January 30, 1998.
Prior to the closure of Shandon, the Project Engineer at the Coastal Project Headquarters notified staff that appellant and another support staff member that they would be temporarily reassigned to cover decreased staff at the Shandon office. The temporary reassignment was to be from July 1, 1997 to the end of August 1997 (when the Shandon office closed). Appellant did not report. Instead she obtained medical documentation that she was ill and unable to work. She was placed on an approved medical leave of absence.
Thereafter, appellant remained off work until her layoff. She was granted Nonindustrial Disability Insurance (NDI) benefits. State Fund declined to accept a claim for Workers' Compensation benefits because appellant refused to provide access to any of her medical records.
Respondent notified appellant of her seniority scores on June 19, 1997, and again on December 1, 1997. Appellant was the only employee in her class and had no demotional opportunities. Appellant originally challenged her seniority scores as improperly computed. After talking informally with the respondent's representative, she withdrew her protest regarding the calculation of seniority scores.
On November 26, 1997, respondent advised appellant that as she had been previously notified on March 18, 1997, staff reductions in her classification were necessary due to the conclusion of the Coastal Project and the closure of the San Luis Obispo Office. Appellant originally challenged the respondent's failure to properly notify her of the layoff. At the hearing she acknowledged she received 60-days' written notice. The controlling MOU only requires 30-days' notice.2

V - APPELLANT'S CLAIM OF IMPROPRIETY

At the hearing appellant claimed that the respondent's layoff was improper because she was on a medical leave of absence and because respondent was responsible for her absence which was precipitated by her inappropriate transfer to the Shandon office. She also claimed that the transfer was in turn inappropriate because it was motivated by prejudice and harassment against her medical condition by management.
In support of her claims, appellant placed in evidence an attendance restriction memorandum issued June 18, 1997, a memorandum temporarily reassigning her to the Shandon office dated June 30, 1997, and a memorandum whereby she advised respondent's Personnel Officer that she was returning the keys to the Coastal Project Headquarters and her department identification card. In addition, she testified she had been raped and assaulted by a fellow employee on December 24, 1996, and that her confidentiality of medical records had been breached by discussions within the office. Appellant acknowledged she had never notified a manager or supervisor of the rape and presented no evidence at the hearing of who attacked her or of who violated her confidentiality.
Even if appellant had placed credible evidence on the record of knowledge of specific incidents of improper conduct by respondent's staff towards appellant (as claimed by appellant), there was no apparent link between these incidents and the closure of the Coastal Project Headquarters.

VI - REMEDIES SOUGHT

The hearing officer asked appellant what remedy she is seeking. Appellant's response was that she "could not comment."
 
* * * * *
PURSUANT TO THE FOREGOING FINDINGS OF FACT THE HEARING OFFICER MAKES THE FOLLOWING DETERMINATION OF ISSUES:
Government Code section 19997(a) and the applicable bargaining agreement provide that whenever it is necessary because of lack of work or funds or whenever it is advisable in the interest of economy to reduce staff of any state agency, the appointing power may lay off permanent Civil Service employees. Similarly they provide that an employee may appeal a layoff on the grounds that the "required procedure has not been complied with" or that the layoff has not been made in "good faith" or is "otherwise improper." Appellant has the burden of proof and the burden of going forward in demonstrating by the preponderance of the evidence that a layoff was not properly executed. In this case appellant failed to meet those burdens.
The preponderance of the evidence established that respondent laid off appellant because of lack of work. Appellant had been off work for medical reasons for seven months when the office closed. However, the decision to close the San Luis Obispo Coastal Project Office and the surrounding field office occurred approximately June 1996, long before her medical leave of absence.
Appellant's layoff was in no way related to her refusal to take a temporary assignment in Shandon or her supervisor's concern regarding her attendance, both of which occurred in June 1997. Furthermore, appellant did not identify any procedural irregularities, bad faith or other improper action by respondent related to or affecting the layoff.
Accordingly, it is concluded appellant's appeal should be denied.
 
* * * * *

WHEREFORE IT IS DETERMINED

that the appeal from layoff effective January 30, 1998, is hereby denied and the action of the Department of Water Resources in implementing the layoff is hereby sustained without modification.
 
* * * * *

FOOTNOTES

1. Agreement between State of California and California State Employees Association covering Bargaining Unit 4 (July 1, 1992-June 30, 1995) Article 16 Layoff (MOU).
2. MOU at Section 16.1 (c).
 
  Updated: 5/2/2012
One Column Page
Link Back to Top