Attorney V and ALJ III Classifications

CASE recently filed both the attached Unfair Labor Practice charge (ULP) with the Public Employee Relations Board (PERB) as well as the attached grievance against the California Department of Human Resources (CalHR). The grievance and ULP were filed in response to a violation of the Unit 2 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). Several bargaining cycles ago, CASE and CalHR agreed to the establishment of the Attorney V classification and the Administrative Law Judge III classification. These new classifications were intended to give Bargaining Unit 2 professionals greater promotional opportunities. The understanding of the parties was that the creation of the new classifications would not be attached to any appropriation of new funds, and any department that wanted to take advantage of the new classifications (i.e. promote their employees) would have to do so out of their existing budget. CASE and CalHR also agreed that there is no limit on the number of promotions and there is no percentage limit on the number of Attorney V or ALJ III positions.

However, CalHR has been requiring any department that wants to classify a position as an Attorney V or ALJ III to obtain the approval of the Department of Finance (DOF). Rather than simply analyzing whether or not each department's budget has sufficient funds to support the promotions, the State, through DOF, has imposed artificial limits on the number of promotions based upon unspecified and arbitrary criteria. This allowed Governor Brown to renege on the promise of promotions in the MOU by artificially restricting those promotions through the DOF which is part of the executive branch. CASE had hoped that this unfair, anti-labor practice would stop under Governor Newsom. Unfortunately, it has continued and as a result we have filed the attached ULP and grievance. CASE has already received a response from PERB wherein they assert that they are within their right to commit these unfair labor practices. CASE will continue to fight these actions through all available levels for both the grievance and ULP.

This email may not reach all CASE members. Accordingly, CASE encourages you to pass this mail along to any of your colleagues who may not have received it. If you are not receiving CASE emails and wish to receive future communications from CASE, please send an email to and request to be added to the distribution list.

CASE also encourages you to send responses from your personal email address as opposed to your state email address. Please keep in mind that all responses will be treated as confidential by CASE.

As always, your support of CASE and your colleagues in Bargaining Unit 2 is greatly appreciated.

Sincerely, The CASE Board of Directors

Unfair Labor Practice Charge


248 views0 comments

Recent Posts

See All

October 7, 2021 Dear Bargaining Unit 2 Member: CASE is pleased to announce that we have executed a new agreement with the State regarding telework, which includes a modest stipend to help offset the c

September 1, 2021 Pursuant to Section 3.14 of the CASE Bylaws, the list of candidates for the 2021 CASE Board of Directors election has been certified by the CASE Elections Committee. In alphabetical

July 15, 2021 Dear Bargaining Unit 2 Member: CASE will be conducting its annual election for the Board of Directors this fall. Four (4) Officer and four (4) “odd-year” Director-at-Large positions wil