Madera County hearing on SEIU grievance focuses on standby pay, timeliness and practice of vehicles-in-lieu

The Madera County Civil Service Commission on April 24 heard testimony in a grievance filed by SEIU Local 521 alleging that three county employees were owed standby pay and that a long-standing department practice of providing take-home county vehicles had effectively substituted for that pay.

The dispute centers on whether the group grievance was filed in the proper place and within the contract's 10-working-day deadline. The union said its first internal contact about the issue was recorded in its UnionWare database on or about May 17, 2023, and that a written grievance was filed June 1, 2023. County human resources responded that the written grievance was improperly submitted to human resources rather than the employees' immediate supervisor and that pay stubs showed the grievants should have known about any unpaid standby earlier, making the complaint untimely under the parties' memorandum of understanding (MOU).

Why it matters: The hearing will determine whether county employees are entitled to standby pay under their MOU and whether procedural defects or statute-of-limitations issues bar the claim. The case raises practical questions about when workers are "on standby," who may authorize standby, and whether an informal long-standing practice in a department can substitute for bargained pay.

Courtney Hawkins, senior contract enforcement specialist for SEIU Local 521, told the commission the union's case file in UnionWare shows initial contact on or about May 17, 2023, and that a formal grievance form was submitted June 1, 2023. "The earliest note that's in there was made... on or about May 17," Hawkins said. She also described how the union's Member Resource Center and field representatives intake and vet potential grievances and explained that the union sometimes extends timeframes or files grievances and then seeks agreement to hold them in abeyance if parties agree.

Susan Carter, the county's human resources manager and chief negotiator, said county investigators reviewed duties and pay records and determined the department had not authorized a standing requirement that would trigger standby pay. "We denied the grievance — one for the improper filing, but also for the timeliness, the untimeliness rather," Carter said. She described the county's interpretation of the contract language: standby pay is for employees "required to remain available for callback at any time," and callback pay is defined in the contract to apply when an employee is required to return to work outside scheduled hours.

Carter told commissioners that, under the MOU's standby section, the County Administrative Officer (CAO) or the CAO's designee must approve standby in advance and that she had found no written CAO approval for the disputed assignments. She said the department had reported a long-running practice of allowing take-home vehicles in the unit at issue, but she could not confirm whether that practice had been negotiated or formally approved by the union.

The county also argued that if employees received pay stubs showing standby or other pay, that evidence could mean the employees had constructive knowledge about pay earlier, and the county asserted a statute-of-limitations point — including references to a five-year constructive-notice contention raised in cross-examination. Union counsel said the commission's exclusion of testimony on alleged bullying and retaliation during earlier witness testimony handicapped the union's ability to answer the county's timeliness argument; union counsel said workplace culture and alleged retaliation had bearing on why employees might delay coming forward.

Procedural rulings and evidence: Commissioners allowed the union to attempt to introduce a late exhibit as a one-time exception to the standard exhibit-exchange rule; the chair said the commission would "use their discretion to bypass the rule of 10 days" to let the union try to move the document into evidence but preserved the county's right to object. Union exhibits 4 and 8 were entered into the record; union exhibit 5 was withdrawn. County Exhibits 2 and 5 were later moved into evidence and admitted. The commission chair repeatedly emphasized that the 10-working-day exhibit-exchange rule exists to avoid surprise, but said the commission would hear evidence to see whether it was relevant.

What witnesses said about process: Hawkins described the union's investigative workflow and said certain contact notes and documents are entered into UnionWare by union staff when major events occur. She said field representative Miguel Barragan handled early outreach, and that after a grievance form was filed the union's contract enforcement team took the case. Hawkins said the union's records show the first intake about the issue occurred May 17, 2023, and that the formal grievance filing date is June 1, 2023.

Carter said human resources had not authorized any employee to unilaterally declare standby; she said the CAO (identified in testimony as Jay Barney at the time) or a CAO designee must approve standby and that she had not seen CAO authorization for the contested assignments. Carter also testified she had been told by department leadership that a vehicle-in-lieu practice had existed for more than seven years but said she did not have documentation showing it had been negotiated or agreed with the union.

Areas commissioners pressed: Commissioners asked about the meaning of the MOU language that a written grievance must be filed "within 10 working days from the time the grievant becomes aware or should have become aware of the issue," whether informal attempts to resolve an issue toll the deadline, and what triggers a new 10-day window when a grievance moves from one step to the next. Hawkins testified the union's practice, as reflected in UnionWare, was to move through the steps and that timelines run anew as the grievance advances to each step under the contract timelines. Carter testified the contract's steps are "mandatory" except where the parties mutually waive steps (for instance if a step involves the immediate supervisor and that supervisor is part of the grievance).

Outstanding: Commissioners heard argument about whether the county's statements that employees had known about pay problems earlier should preclude the claim and whether alleged workplace retaliation could excuse filing delays — the commission did not resolve the legal threshold at this hearing. The hearing record now includes testimony from the union's contract enforcement specialist and the county's human resources manager; the county indicated it would call department witnesses, including the department chief and former department leadership, in subsequent sessions.

The commission recessed for the evening with plans to reconvene for continued county testimony; commissioners set no final schedule in the transcript but said they would continue the hearing the next day at the same place and time.