The California Public Employment Employment Relations Board ordered the County of San Mateo, in its role to supervise the sheriff’s office, to resolve a complaint from the Association of Assistant Sheriffs alleging work violations.
Founded earlier this month, the union’s complaint accuses the besieged sheriff Christina Corpus and the former chief of staff Victor Aenlle of having unilaterally modified overtime and endowment policies, interfering with the rights of the Union and retaluating against the association for having participated in protected activities.
The Labor Council provided for a settlement conference for later this month. If no agreement is concluded, the case will carry out an official hearing.
Although the sheriff and the county managers have disagreed for several months, the county has been appointed intimated in the complaint because it serves as an employer and oversees the sheriff’s office in terms of work.
The complaint stresses that before August of last year, temporary directives encouraged deputies to volunteer for 24 hours every two weeks, with at least 12 of these hours worked in the prison.
The sheriff would have extended these expired guidelines and increased the overtime of prison required to 18 of the 24 overtime. The union maintains that this change in overtime rules – in particular additional prison changes – has been implemented without negotiation, violating labor laws.
He also indicates that the Maguire correctional establishment, managed by the sheriff’s office, generally worked with 25 to 32 deputies during the day and 25 to 30 in the evening. The county would have changed this by increasing the endowment levels in certain prisons, in particular by raising the number of deputies per quarter quarter to Maguire to 35. The union maintains that this increase in the minimum allocation was also made without notice or prior discussion.
The association maintains that these actions violate the rules of the state obliging employers to negotiate such questions, undermining the rights of deputies and the capacity of the union to represent them.
The complaint echoes broader allegations of corruption, misconduct and harassment at the detailed workplace in an independent 400 -page audit led by retirement judge Ladoris Cordell last year.
In a statement, the union said that the Labor Commission’s decision to advance the complaint “affirms the validity of our complaints and marks a critical step in maintaining the rights and responsibility for labor”.
In addition to the extension dispute, the union also affirms that Entellement has tried to weaken its leadership by suggesting that deputies withdraw the union leaders, directly communicating additional information to the deputies rather than by the union, and sending a threatening letter after the union filed its complaint and announced a vote without confidence against Aenlle last year.
The union also alleges that the sheriff retaliated against its president, Carlos Tapia, by arresting it and placing it on leave “because of its union activities” – the actions that the association supports is illegal. Tapia was arrested in November 2024 for the alleged chronology fraud, but the District of the County of San Mateo, Stephen Wagstaffe, refused to file a complaint.
The Corpus office did not respond to requests for comments.
The complaint is the last development of an increasing scandal surrounding the sheriff, which faces legal and political pressure. Earlier this month, she continued the county to oblige the publication of payment files linked to the Cordell survey on her administration.
Corpus, the first Latina sheriff of the county, rejected the calls to resign. She maintains that allegations against her are with a political motivation and that Cordell’s investigation into her administration was biased and imperfect.
A new amendment to the County Charter of San Mateo entered into force on Friday, temporarily granting the authority of the supervisor council to withdraw a sheriff elected until 2028 – a power approved by 84% of voters last month.
The board of directors has also examined, but not yet adopted, a deletion process proposed in 12 stages developed with the directives of the law firm Hanson Bridgett. The process could take at least 3 and a half months, not to mention the time to appoint a successor if the corpus is ultimately deleted.
California Daily Newspapers
