Fire Watch
Cynthia O’Neill Partner Emeritus
San Francisco
Partner Adrianna Guzman And Associate Ronni Cuccia Convince Union To Withdraw Unfair Practice Charge.
A union filed an unfair practice charge on December 2, 2025. The union argued that the county refused to provide information it requested for bargaining on January 23, 2025, even though the union offered to sign a confidentiality agreement. The county consistently maintained the position that the information was proprietary and could not be released in any circumstance.
firm victory Labor Relations
PERB Orders 10% Pay Award Plus Interest After Employer Unilaterally Imposed Of Out-Of-Class Work.
The IBEW, Local 18, represents the water distribution employees who work for the City of Azusa Light & Power (ALP). The City assigned these employees to implement a Service Line Inventory project in response to state and federal regulations regarding the use of lead pipes in water systems. ALP management believed that the project work was within the scope of the employees’ duties.
IBEW filed an unfair practice charge with the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB). IBEW alleged that the City violated the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act (MMBA) when it assigned water employees to perform a Service Line Inventory of the City’s roughly 24,000 customer service lines, and to meet daily inspection quotas. IBEW alleged that the City changed the employees’ duties without providing IBEW adequate advance notice and opportunity to meet and confer over the decision and the effects.
An administrative law judge (ALJ) agreed with IBEW. The ALJ concluded that the City had violated its duty to bargain in good faith because the Service Line Inventory project was not within the employees’ existing job duties. The ALJ found that the project required: new and distinct
Attorneys Guzman and Cuccia drafted the county’s position statement in opposition to the charge. They argued that the charge was untimely. A charge must be filed within six months of the alleged act or of the date which the union knew or should have known of the alleged act. The charge was more than 100 days late. They also argued that the union could not reset the statute of limitations by simply reiterating its information request at a later date because the county’s position on the original request had been clear and unmistakable.
Shortly thereafter, the union withdrew the charge.
job duties; the employees to receive training; and the employees to work alone in week-long assignments to perform new, repetitive physical tasks. The ALJ ordered the City to cease and desist, post a notice that the City had violated the MMBA, and read the notice aloud (aka a spoken notice). The ALJ did not order make-whole relief or order a bargaining remedy because the project was already complete.
IBEW excepted to the ALJ’s proposed remedy and requested PERB to order make-whole relief for the employees. PERB pointed to a long line of PERB decisions that hold that if the charging party establishes a unilateral change involving extra work, then extra pay is a proper remedy as long as there is a reasonable basis for estimating the pay. PERB noted that the MOU provided 5% pay for out-of-classification work. PERB also noted that the City had previously granted two groups of employees either a salary increase or a special assignment pay in the amount of 10% for their work to install smart meters. PERB decided that the smart meter project was similar to the Service Line Inventory work and awarded 10% pay increase for the time the employees spent on the project. PERB also ordered interest on the 10% at an annual rate of seven percent, compounded daily. With this financial remedy in place, PERB found no need for the spoken notice that the ALJ had ordered.
City of Azusa (2006) PERB Dec. No. 3004-M.
PUBLIC RECORDS
Employee’s Felony Conviction Caused A Pension Forfeiture Despite Its Later Reduction To A Misdemeanor.
A former County employee pleaded guilty to a felony conflict-of-interest charge in May 2022. The Retirement Board informed him in August 2022 that under state pension law codified at Government Code section 7522.74, his felony conviction required a forfeiture of part of his pension benefits. The criminal court later reduced the felony to a misdemeanor under Penal Code section 17(b)(3). The former employee asked the pension board to reinstate his benefits.
The County Retirement Board denied his request, and the trial court upheld that denial. The California Court of Appeal addressed whether a public employee is “convicted” under Government Code section 7522.74
when guilt is adjudicated (by plea), or only when a judgment is entered, and the effect of a subsequent reduction to a misdemeanor.
The Court agreed with published precedent that a guilty plea to a felony constitutes a “conviction” for purposes of the pension forfeiture statute, and that the subsequent reduction to a misdemeanor did not undo the earlier conviction for pension purposes. The Court noted that the forfeiture law only identifies one circumstance when pension benefits can be returned-- when the conviction is reversed. Thus, the former employee could not receive his forfeited pension benefits. Under the Public Employees’ Pension Reform Act, statutory felony pension forfeiture is triggered by the adjudication of guilt, and subsequent reductions of the underlying charge do not restore forfeited benefits.
Bishop v. San Diego County Employees Retirement Association (2026) Cal.App.LEXIS 106.
Restraining Orders
Restraining
Order Granted Against Father Whose Son Had Made Credible Threats Of Violence.
The Anaheim Police Department (APD) sought the Gun Violence Restraining Order under Penal Code section 18175 (GVRO) after John Adams Crockett Jr.’s adult son, Tyler Crockett, who lived with him, made credible threats of a mass shooting at Savanna High School in Anaheim. Tyler had a documented history of multiple mental health holds and was subject to a lifetime prohibition on possessing firearms. After sending text messages threatening to “shoot up” the school and referencing his access to large quantities of ammunition, the APD obtained a GVRO against John Adams Crockett, who owned numerous firearms and thousands of rounds of ammunition.
At the evidentiary hearing, the trial court found the requisite clear and convincing evidence that John Adams Crockett failed to adequately secure his firearms from
his son, Tyler, and that Tyler posed a significant danger of carrying out gun violence. The court determined that John Adams Crockett’s conduct to allow Tyler access to firearms, despite Tyler’s lifetime prohibition and mental health history, created a substantial risk of personal injury to others. The trial court issued a three-year GVRO, and Crockett appealed.
In the California Court of Appeal, John Adams Crockett argued there was insufficient evidence to support the GVRO, and he challenged Penal Code section 18175 on several grounds, including vagueness, overbreadth, and violation of his Second Amendment rights. The Court rejected these arguments and affirmed the order.
The Court emphasized that section 18175 is preventative and forward-looking, and that a person may “cause” a danger of injury under this law by giving another person, who poses a credible threat, access to firearms. The Court further held that the law was sufficiently clear and that Crockett forfeited several claims by failing to raise them in the trial court.
Anaheim Police Dept. v. Crockett (2026) CalApp.LEXIS 101.
Note:
LCW attorneys regularly win Workplace Violence Restraining Orders on behalf of employers who need to protect employees. The law governing Workplace Violence Restraining Orders is Code of Civil Procedure section 527.8. Similar to Penal Code section 18175, an employer must show a credible threat of violence by clear and convincing evidence to receive the Workplace Violence Restraining Order.
Did you know?
Whether you are looking to impress your colleagues or just want to learn more about the law, LCW has your back! Use and share these fun legal facts about various topics in public safety.
• Red Line Safety, a startup founded by a retired fire captain, has developed a wearable device that monitors firefighters’ vital signs, location, and environmental hazards in real time to help prevent line-of-duty deaths and serious health issues. In a pilot program, the technology helped identify a firefighter’s life-threatening heart condition, underscoring its potential impact. The company recently received a $50,000 grant from the California Office of the Small Business Advocate (CalOSBA) to support further development and expansion as it prepares for a broader launch.
New Leadership Appointments!
Liebert Cassidy Whitmore is pleased to announce new leadership appointments across three of its offices.
Alysha Stein-Manes will serve as Co-Managing Partner of the Los Angeles office. Gage Dungy and Michael Youril have been named Office Managing Partners of the Sacramento and Fresno offices, respectively.
In their new roles, Alysha, Gage, and Michael will advance LCW’s strategic growth, strengthen client relationships, and support the continued development of attorneys and staff across the firm.
Consortium Call Of The Month
Members of Liebert Cassidy Whitmore’s employment relations consortiums may speak directly to an LCW attorney free of charge regarding questions that are not related to ongoing legal matters that LCW is handling for the agency, or that do not require in-depth research, document review, or written opinions. Consortium call questions run the gamut of topics, from leaves of absence to employment applications, disciplinary concerns and more. This feature describes an interesting consortium call and how the question was answered. We will protect the confidentiality of client communications with LCW attorneys by changing or omitting details.
Question:
Do inmates from state or local correctional institutions who fight fires or perform related duties have rights under the Firefighters Procedural Bill of Rights Act?
Answer:
No. (Government Code section 3251(a)(2).)
Labor Relations Certification Program
Developing Positive Partnerships and Leadership Excellence for Labor Relations Professionals
The use of this official seal confirms that this Activity has met HR Certification Institute’s® (HRCI®) criteria for recertification credit pre-approval.
2026 VIRTUAL CLASSES
All seven workshops include both traditional training and interactive simulations to develop skills helpful to labor relations professionals.
LCW 2026 Pre-Conference 21 January COSTING LABOR CONTRACTS
*In-Person event: San Francisco
12 & 19 February NUTS & BOLTS OF NEGOTIATIONS
12 & 19 March RULES OF ENGAGEMENT
16 & 23 April BARGAINING OVER BENEFITS
07 & 14 May PERB ACADEMY
04 & 11 June TRENDS & TOPICS AT THE TABLE
Interested?
Start Earning Your Certificate at: https://cvent.me/qWm1W9
16 & 23 July COMMUNICATION COUNTS! 13 & 20 August RULES OF ENGAGEMENT
17 & 24 September NUTS & BOLTS OF NEGOTIATIONS 15 & 22 October PERB ACADEMY 03 & 10 December BARGAINING OVER BENEFITS
*Each class consists of two dates/parts. Participation in both dates/parts is required for certification.
*Participants in the LRCP program have a three-year timeframe to complete all seven classes.
Liebert Cassidy Whitmore