Madera County mechanics and union dispute standby pay, county calls grievance untimely

Three Madera County fire department mechanics and a union representative described at a public hearing how an on-call practice, county-issued service trucks and a standby-pay provision in the SEIU Local 521 memorandum of understanding led to a formal grievance filed June 1, 2023.

The grievance, filed by SEIU Local 521 on behalf of affected employees, alleges the county denied required standby compensation for Fire Master Mechanics. Jeremy Whitten and Roy Minnick, both mechanics, told the commission the department used an on-call calendar starting in January 2021 and that employees were expected to be available after regular hours.

"This is our call schedule, the days that we were on call," Whitten said while reviewing union exhibits. He described that the MOU provides standby compensation and that, in his understanding, "when an employee is required to stand by, they shall be compensated for such standby time at the rate of $4 per hour." Minnick said the crew had been "on call 365 days out of the year" before the calendar and described the practical effects of on-call work: keeping phones on, limiting travel, and being prepared to respond to breakdowns or tow situations.

Union organizer Miguel Barragan testified about the union's handling of the issue. SEIU representatives attempted informal resolution steps and, after failing to reach a satisfactory local solution, filed a group grievance dated June 1, 2023 (Union Exhibit 1). The county's written response, dated June 15, 2023 and entered in the record by county counsel, says the county denies the grievance as untimely and asserts the grievance parties were on notice of the asserted practice several years earlier.

Witnesses described several disputed facts that underlie the grievance: a written hiring document that permits Fire Master Mechanics to park repair vehicles at their homes; an asserted past practice or verbal agreement—described by staff as having been made years earlier—that taking a truck home was a privilege and, according to employees, meant they would not receive standby pay; and a June 2023 change when crews lost the use of their service trucks.

Both Whitten and Minnick said the roster was produced by their supervisor, Ryan Noll, and was updated yearly. Minnick said afterhours responses varied with fire season: "You could be called out once a night... you might not get a call for three days. You could be called out twice a night, three times a night." He said employees were told to respond to calls and had about one hour to call back dispatch and were expected to remain roughly within 30 minutes of their homes while on call.

Mechanics described how standby pay was handled in payroll: staff must record standby on NeoGov time sheets, approved by the supervisor and forwarded to payroll approvers. Both mechanics said they received standby pay for one month after they raised the issue with human resources and that some payroll entries were later reversed; Whitten testified that one coworker was required to repay a month of standby pay while he and another mechanic were not asked to reimburse that month.

Union and county counsel disputed the timeline for filing: union witnesses described contacting SEIU in late April or early May 2023 and trying to resolve the matter informally (including an HR meeting attended by union stewards and HR staff), while county counsel pointed to the county's written response asserting the grievance was untimely because, the response says, employees or the county had knowledge of the practice earlier. Commissioners and counsel repeatedly asked witnesses to identify where the MOU defines standby and to explain when the union and members first became aware of the issue; witnesses said they first reviewed the standby provision in early 2023 and traced formal steps that led to the June 1 filing.

No final administrative decision on the grievance was issued at the hearing. County counsel noted the county's written denial based on untimeliness; union counsel argued there had been informal steps and defaulting of steps in the grievance process that required moving the matter to higher levels. Commissioners asked for clarifications about the grievance timeline, the union's internal review, and the county's handling of pay approvals.

The hearing record includes union exhibits showing the on-call calendar (Union Exhibit 7) and the MOU standby provision (Union Exhibit 8, identified in testimony as Article 14.020). The panel closed the day's testimony with instructions that the matter would continue in the grievance process and administrative channels.

The commission did not vote on the grievance at the hearing and, according to testimony, the next formal steps include continued grievance processing and possible civil service procedures.