Madera County hearing pits union against county over mechanics' standby pay and evidence timing

Madera County Civil Service Commission members heard testimony April 24, 2025, in a multi-day grievance hearing over whether three county mechanics were owed standby pay and whether evidence and timelines complied with the parties' contract and county rules.

Courtney Hawkins, senior contract enforcement specialist with SEIU Local 521, testified for the union about the union's internal records and the timing of the grievance. "The earliest note that's in there was made . . . on or about May 17, 2023," Hawkins said, referring to the union's Unionware database. Hawkins testified that a written grievance was filed on June 1, 2023, and that the case was assigned to her in early to mid June 2023.

The union pressed that its internal intake and investigatory practice affects when a grievance is filed and how the 10-working-day filing deadline in the Memorandum of Understanding is applied. Hawkins explained the union's process for intake through a Member Resource Center and the use of Unionware to track contacts, and said the database typically records "most major events" such as first contact and formal filings.

Susan Carter, Madera County human resources manager and the county's lead negotiator on the contract, testified for the county. Carter said the county denied the grievance in a written response dated June 15, 2023, because the county viewed the grievance as improperly submitted to Human Resources rather than to the employee's immediate supervisor and because the county considered the claim untimely. "It was improperly submitted, the grievance was . . . untimely," Carter said in summarizing the county's position.

Carter also described the county's interpretation and application of contract language on standby and callback. She said standby pay requires an assignment approved in advance by the County Administrative Officer (CAO) and that callback pay (the contract's overtime/callback provision) applies when an employee is required to return to work at a location outside regular hours. Carter testified the county was told there had been a department practice for more than seven years of providing county vehicles to certain mechanics as a convenience in lieu of formal standby payouts, but that the vehicle practice was not recorded in the MOU and she had no documentation showing union agreement to that practice.

The parties also contested an evidentiary dispute at the hearing. Union counsel sought to introduce an email that had not been included in the parties' pre-hearing exhibit exchange. County counsel objected, noting the civil service rules require parties to share exhibits and witness lists at least 10 working days before the hearing to avoid surprise. The commission allowed a one-time exception to permit the union to attempt to move the email into evidence and indicated it could be offered later as rebuttal if necessary. The commission's chair said the exception did not commit the commission to admit the document as evidence.

County counsel framed a statute-of-limitations argument in cross-examination: the county asserted that, under constructive notice principles, the grievants "have known about this issue for five years" and therefore cannot recover for older periods. Union counsel objected that workplace conditions such as alleged retaliation or bullying—matters the union said were precluded from earlier testimony—are relevant to explain delays in filing.

No final ruling on the grievance or remedy was made during the testimony excerpted here. The commission heard argument and testimony but reserved further determinations for subsequent proceedings. The hearing was adjourned for the evening and scheduled to reconvene the following day.