EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; INTERFERENCE WITH RIGHT TO SELF OR UNION REPRESENTATION; WEINGARTEN RIGHTS – Investigatory Interviews

Single Topic for Decision 2660S

View all topics for Decision 2660S

Full Decision Text (click on the link to view): Full Text

The following facts demonstrated the investigatory nature of the Office of the Inspector General’s (OIG) interviews of correctional officers: OIG coordinated with local prison management to have the officers made available for the interviews, usually through issuance of direct orders for the officers to report at a specified time and place. OIG went so far as to ask local wardens to direct officers to attend and participate in the interviews. It held the interviews at the officers’ job sites, in office spaces that it arranged for with management, rather than at a neutral or offsite location. OIG gave the officers little to no advance notice of the interviews or their subject matter, and while the deputy inspector generals told the officers the interviews were voluntary, the subpoenas clearly indicated otherwise. Nor did the officers have time to object to the subpoenas since the deputy inspector general proceeded with the interviews on the spot. Contrary to OIG’s assertion, not all of the officers interviewed understood the different functions of the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) and OIG, or even that OIG was distinct from CDCR. Given OIG and the union’s acrimonious history, as evidenced by some of OIG’s statements from the 2015 Special Review Report, the officers had particular reason to be vigilant when confronted with a deputy inspector general with only a minimum of notice and no background information whatsoever. In this context, the officers could have reasonably feared that they or their colleagues faced punitive action as a result of the interviews, particularly because the interviews covered topics which exposed officers to potential for discipline for failure to report their own or others’ misconduct. The Board found a reasonable basis for such a belief notwithstanding the deputy inspector generals’ caveats that the interviews were part of a review as opposed to an investigation and therefore would not serve as the basis for any discipline. (p. 26.)