Union contends Madera County violated MOU by not paying standby pay to three fire‑shop employees

A three‑member grievance brought by SEIU Local 521 over unpaid standby pay for three former or current Madera County Fire Fleet employees was the subject of an administrative hearing before a county hearing panel. The union asked the panel to interpret a standby provision in the parties' memorandum of understanding (MOU) and to order back pay and prospective compliance for Ashley Diaz, Jeremy Whitten and Roy Minnick.

The union's attorney, Eileen Gonzales, said the MOU's standby clause required pay when the employer required employees to remain available and that the three employees were not paid for years of after‑hours availability. Gonzales said the standby pay rate in the contract was $4 per hour and argued the panel should order back pay and that the department comply going forward. "The grievance are entitled to standby pay," Gonzales said during opening remarks, asking the panel to award back pay for all hours the employees were required to be on standby.

County counsel James McCann told the panel the union bears the burden to prove entitlement by a preponderance of the evidence and that the hearing's scope is limited to the MOU's standby definition and whether the employees met it. McCann said the county had denied the grievance for both procedural defects and lack of merit: the county asserted the grievance was filed late and improperly bypassed mandatory grievance steps. "If the grievance was not timely or did not follow the required steps, you must find in favor of the county," McCann said in opening remarks.

On process and evidence, the county moved to sequester nonparty witnesses; the panel declined to order broad sequestration and allowed the named grievants and union representatives to remain in the hearing. The parties agreed the three employees would be addressed in a single hearing but that the panel could make separate findings for each individual if necessary.

Testimony from the union's first witness, parts assistant Ashley Diaz, described receiving a county cell phone and frequent after‑hours contacts about parts, deliveries and maintenance needs. Diaz testified she was instructed by her supervisor, Ryan Knowles, to carry the phone and be available, that she responded to calls by ordering parts, traveling to pick up parts (she cited one instance the Friday after Thanksgiving), and that she understood she could be disciplined for not answering. Diaz said the union and HR had approved one month of standby pay in April 2023, which was paid to her and later recouped by the county from her wages. "I was required to carry my phone ... to be ready to go if I'm needed," she testified.

Jeremy Whitten, a fire master mechanic testifying via Zoom, said he and Roy Minnick frequently took county service trucks home and were expected to be ready to respond after hours. Whitten described long periods of informal 24/7 availability early in his employment and said he and Roy later sought a formal call‑out schedule; he testified the schedule at issue was created in 2023. Whitten said after‑hours work was compensated as overtime/time worked when they were called in, but he said the department did not pay standby as the union now claims. "We had to respond within an hour," Whitten said of callback expectations.

The county's position, reflected in its opening statement and cross‑examination, emphasized two categories of defenses: (1) procedural — the county says the grievance was untimely and bypassed grievance steps that could have resolved the matter, and (2) substantive — the county contends the duties were voluntary, infrequent and not the same as the MOU's defined standby or callback obligations. County witnesses and exhibits (entered as Union Exhibits 1 and 2 and Union Exhibit 7 during the hearing) were discussed at length by both sides about timing, scheduling and who was designated to take after‑hours calls.

Panel members and counsel also explored how the shop handled after‑hours parts requests (purchase orders, CalCard access, and fuel cards), who had access to county vehicles, how often workers were contacted outside regular hours, and the practical effect of being required to remain available (limitations on travel and alcohol, keeping a clean uniform and quick access to a vehicle). Several witnesses testified that after‑hours responses were recorded as overtime when they involved active work, but that standby hours were generally not recorded on timesheets except for the one month placed on a timecard with HR's apparent initial approval.

The hearing continued without a final panel decision at the close of the day's testimony; commissioners scheduled reconvening on the record to continue direct and cross‑examination and to receive further evidence. The panel did not issue a ruling during the session reported in the transcript.

Because the dispute concerns contract interpretation (the MOU's standby provision) and the calculation of any remedy, the hearing record will determine whether the panel orders back pay, prospective compliance, or dismisses the grievance for procedural or substantive reasons. The panel also signaled it would treat each named grievant as a distinct claim if the facts differed by individual.