Court of Appeal Restores Arbitration Award in Correctional Officer Union Retaliation Case
When public employees are disciplined, more than one legal system may be involved. A state civil service agency may decide whether there was cause for discipline. A labor arbitrator may decide whether the discipline also violated a union contract or public-sector labor law. Those questions can overlap, but they are not always the same.
That distinction drove the Third District Court of Appeal’s decision in Department of Human Resources v. California Correctional Peace Officers Association, filed May 15, 2026. The case involved a correctional officer and union representative who was suspended after posting disciplinary materials on a union bulletin board. The State Personnel Board upheld the discipline. Later, a labor arbitrator found the discipline violated the union contract and the Ralph C. Dills Act because it interfered with protected union activity. The trial court cut back the arbitration award. The Court of Appeal reversed and ordered the arbitration award confirmed in full.
The Bulletin Board Posting
Tracylyn Lopez worked as a correctional officer at Salinas Valley State Prison and served as a job steward and union representative for the California Correctional Peace Officers Association. In 2017, Lopez was disciplined after referring to two other officers using profanity. She believed the discipline was unusual because rough language was common among correctional officers and thought she was being singled out because of her union activity. That earlier discipline was eventually reduced to a letter of reprimand.
In July 2018, Lopez posted excerpts from the disciplinary materials on a CCPOA bulletin board near the prison entrance. The posting showed she had been disciplined for profanity and included the surnames of the other officers involved. The materials were visible to others, including inmate workers. Prison management viewed the posting as improper because it could be read as identifying the officers who reported Lopez’s comments.
CDCR later imposed a 60-workday suspension. The stated concern was serious: the posting allegedly promoted the “code of silence,” an unwritten prison culture in which correctional officers do not report misconduct by other officers.
Two Different Proceedings Followed
Lopez challenged the discipline before the State Personnel Board. The SPB accepted the factual findings of an administrative law judge but rejected the recommendation to reduce the suspension. The SPB concluded Lopez knew or should have known the posting could identify the other officers and discourage reporting of misconduct. It sustained the 60-workday suspension as justified under the civil service discipline rules.
Lopez also filed a union grievance. CCPOA took the grievance to arbitration under the memorandum of understanding between the union and the State. The grievance was based on a different theory: the discipline allegedly violated the MOU and the Dills Act by interfering with protected union speech and representational activity.
The arbitrator ruled for Lopez and CCPOA. The arbitrator found the posting was protected activity because it commented on disciplinary practices and warned other bargaining unit members about discipline for conduct Lopez believed was common in the workplace. The arbitrator also found evidence of antiunion motive, including emails from the warden referring to Lopez’s role and influence as a union representative. The arbitrator ordered CDCR to rescind the notice of adverse action, make Lopez whole with backpay and restoration of lost benefits, and post a notice acknowledging interference with protected union activity.
The Trial Court Cut Back the Award
CDCR asked the superior court to vacate or correct the arbitration award. It argued the arbitrator exceeded her authority because the SPB had already upheld the discipline. The trial court agreed in part. It did not vacate the entire award, but it corrected the award by striking the remedy requiring CDCR to rescind the discipline and make Lopez whole.
In practical terms, the trial court allowed the arbitrator’s finding of labor-law interference to remain but removed the make-whole remedy tied to the suspension.
The Court of Appeal Reversed
The Court of Appeal held the trial court went too far. Courts have very limited authority to disturb arbitration awards, especially in labor arbitration. An arbitrator may exceed her powers if an award violates an unwaivable statutory right or an explicit public policy, but that exception is narrow. The public policy must be clear, well defined, and dominant, and the award itself must violate that policy.
CDCR argued the arbitration award interfered with the SPB’s constitutional authority to review state civil service discipline. The Court of Appeal rejected that argument. The SPB had, in fact, reviewed the discipline under the Civil Service Act. The arbitrator did not prevent the SPB from doing so. Instead, the arbitrator decided a different question: whether the same discipline violated the MOU and the Dills Act because it interfered with protected union activity.
The court emphasized that two things can be true at the same time. There may be cause for discipline under civil service rules, while the same discipline may also be tainted by unlawful retaliation or interference under labor law. The Court of Appeal described the arbitration award as offsetting the suspension, rather than improperly reversing or bypassing the SPB’s decision.
Why the SPB and PERB Issues Did Not Defeat the Award
The opinion includes a detailed discussion of the relationship between the State Personnel Board and the Public Employment Relations Board. The SPB protects the merit-based civil service system and reviews state employee discipline. PERB enforces public-sector collective bargaining laws, including the Dills Act. Those functions may overlap when a disciplinary action is alleged to have been motivated by antiunion animus.
The Court of Appeal relied on earlier California Supreme Court authority recognizing that the SPB and labor-relations agencies serve different purposes. The SPB’s role does not eliminate protections against retaliation for union activity. The court distinguished cases where a collective bargaining agreement unlawfully allowed employees to bypass the SPB entirely. Here, Lopez did not bypass the SPB. She pursued the SPB appeal on the civil service discipline question and pursued arbitration on the union-retaliation question.
That procedural structure was important. The arbitrator was not deciding whether the SPB had authority to review discipline. The arbitrator was deciding whether CDCR violated the MOU and Dills Act and what remedy was appropriate for that violation.
The “Code of Silence” Argument Also Failed
CDCR also argued the arbitration award violated public policy because CDCR has a strong interest in eliminating the correctional officer code of silence. The Court of Appeal did not minimize that concern. It accepted the seriousness of the issue but found the argument legally insufficient.
The question was not whether the code of silence is harmful. The question was whether public policy required the particular 60-workday suspension to remain in place despite the arbitrator’s finding of protected union activity and retaliatory motive. CDCR did not show any explicit public policy requiring a particular suspension term for this conduct. Without that showing, the public policy exception did not apply.
What the Decision Means
This decision reinforces the strong deference courts give to labor arbitration awards. A court may disagree with an arbitrator’s analysis, but disagreement is not enough. Unless the award exceeds the arbitrator’s powers, violates an unwaivable statutory right, or conflicts with a clear and explicit public policy, the award will generally stand.
For public employers, the case is a reminder that discipline can be defensible under civil service standards and still create labor-law exposure if the evidence shows retaliation, antiunion motive, or interference with protected activity. The employer’s legitimate operational concern does not automatically defeat a union-protection claim.
For unions and public employees, the case confirms the importance of identifying the correct legal forum and theory. The SPB may decide whether discipline is supported under the civil service rules. A grievance arbitrator, PERB, or both may address whether the discipline violated public-sector labor rights.
The Court of Appeal ultimately reversed the judgment and directed the trial court to confirm the arbitration award in its entirety. CCPOA was awarded its costs on appeal.
Department of Human Resources v. California Correctional Peace Officers Association was filed on May 15, 2026, by the California Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District, Case No. C100353. The judgment denying confirmation of the arbitration award and correcting the award was reversed, and the case was remanded with directions to enter a new judgment confirming the arbitration award in full.