Tracylyn Lopez, a correctional officer and the California Correctional Peace Officers Association (CCPOA) representative at Salinas Valley State Prison in California, was suspended for 60 workdays after posting excerpts from a prior disciplinary action on a union bulletin board near the prison’s main entrance. The materials related to discipline she had received for directing profanity at two other officers. Although Lopez redacted her first name, the posting included the unique surnames of the other officers. The materials remained posted for several days until then-Warden Shawn Hatton asked Lopez to remove them, believing the posting could imply that the named officers were responsible for her discipline. Hatton did not pursue discipline at that time.
After Hatton’s retirement, his successor, Warden Tammy Foss, sought to initiate discipline without conducting an investigation. In July 2019, the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation and Department of Human Resources (CDCR) issued a notice of adverse action charging Lopez with inexcusable neglect of duty, willful disobedience, failure of good behavior, and unlawful retaliation against another state officer or employee. Lopez appealed to the State Personnel Board (SPB), arguing that the posting was protected commentary on CDCR’s disciplinary practices. The SPB rejected that argument, concluding that the posting fostered a “code of silence” by identifying the reporting officers and undermining institutional safety, and upheld the 60-workday suspension.
At the same time, Lopez and CCPOA filed a grievance under the parties’ memorandum of understanding (MOU). Section 5.03 of the MOU prohibited reprisals or interference with employees’ exercise of rights under California’s Ralph C. Dills Act and authorized arbitration as the mechanism to remedy such violations. The Dills Act governs collective bargaining for state employees and prohibits employers from disciplining employees in retaliation for protected union or concerted activity. The MOU provided that the arbitrator’s decision would be final and binding and that the arbitrator had “full authority to grant any appropriate remedy,” including remedies available to a PERB administrative law judge.
The Arbitrator sustained the grievance. She determined that Lopez posted the materials to “show other unit members that management was charging employees with conduct that is common” and disciplining them excessively. The Arbitrator observed that “[s]peaking with other employees about disciplinary actions is protected,” and concluded that Lopez’s conduct constituted protected activity under the Dills Act. Although CDCR argued that the posting promoted the code of silence, the Arbitrator found evidence of retaliatory motive and antiunion animus, including internal emails reflecting concern about Lopez as a powerful union representative. The Arbitrator concluded CDCR failed to establish it would have imposed the same discipline absent Lopez’s protected activity. She ordered CDCR to rescind the adverse action, restore lost pay and benefits, and post a notice acknowledging interference with protected rights.
CDCR petitioned to vacate or correct the award, contending the Arbitrator exceeded her authority and interfered with the SPB’s constitutional role in reviewing discipline. The trial court declined to vacate the award but struck the portions requiring rescission of discipline and make-whole relief. CCPOA appealed.
The California Court of Appeal, Third District, reversed. The Court began by emphasizing that judicial review of labor arbitration awards is “extremely narrow” and that courts afford “a nearly unparalleled degree of deference” to arbitrators in the labor context. An award may be vacated only in limited circumstances, including where it “contravenes an explicit legislative expression of public policy,” and even then, “this is the exception, not the rule.”
Applying that standard, the Court held that the award did not violate the SPB’s constitutional authority to review discipline. While the SPB’s duty to “review disciplinary actions” reflects an explicit public policy, that duty had been fully exercised here. The SPB reviewed and upheld the suspension for cause under the Civil Service Act. The arbitration, by contrast, addressed a distinct question: whether the discipline was imposed in retaliation for protected activity under the MOU and the Dills Act. The Court rejected the framing that the Arbitrator had overridden or bypassed the SPB, explaining that “it is more accurate to say the award offset the suspension,” rather than reversed the SPB’s decision.
The Court further rejected CDCR’s reliance on public policy concerning the “code of silence.” Even assuming such a policy exists, the relevant inquiry is whether the award itself violates that policy. The Court concluded CDCR failed to show that public policy required a particular disciplinary outcome — such as a mandatory suspension — in circumstances like these. Absent such a showing, the Arbitrator’s award did not conflict with any “explicit, well defined and dominant” public policy.
The Court therefore reversed the trial court’s judgment and remanded with directions to confirm the arbitration award in full, including rescission of the discipline and make-whole relief, and awarded costs on appeal to CCPOA.
Department of Human Resources et al. v. California Correctional Peace Officers Association, 50 PERC ¶ 166, 2026 WL 1602136 (Cal. Ct. App. May 15, 2026).