G R I E V A N C E I N I T I.A T I 0 N. Cla&S Title. Section Electronics Unit Dale of discussion Tille OIC - Tech lab

Form Gen. 162 CITY OF LOS ANGELES G R I E V A N C E I N I T I.A T I 0 N For management use only File ND. Aasoclatlon/Unlon ------ Unll INSTRUCTIONS Complete form and distribute In accordance with prescribed departmental procedures. Grievant'& Name (Please Print) Cla&S Title Kenneth James Hoerricks Police Surveillance Specialist 1 OeplJBureau and Division LAPD I Detective Bureau I SID Has this grievance been dlscuased with your Immediate Supervisor? Yes Name of Immediate Supervisor Charles Siegler Section Electronics Unit Dale of discussion 1-8-2014 Tille OIC - Tech lab l Business Phone (213) 473-7650 Whal Is the action or slluallon about which you have a grievance? (Be specific as to names, dates and locatlons.) Worked stand-by from 12-25-13-12~28-13. Turned In OT slips (02.24.00) on time. Pay was not on paycheck 1-8-14. The Department Is considering the PSS1 position equivalent to a Communication Electrician In terms of stand-by pay, though no such language exists In the MOU, the classes have unique Identifiers and job descriptions, and the classes are paid at a different rate. What do you think should be done about II? I should be paid in accordance with the terms of MOU2, Article 6.5, Section 1 on the next paycheck. What was Supervisor's response? ---------- -- -. -- That I am not entitled to be paid for working standby during the week days - 12-26-13 & 12-27-13. That the Department considers the PSS1 position to be equivalent to a Communication Electrician and is thus not entlued to weekday standby. What article of applicable Memorandum of Understanding (MOU} and/or Departmental Work Rules do you think have-been violated? Ar11cle of MOU Departmental Work Rule of Grlevable Incident MOU2, Article 6.5, Section 1 01/08/2014 What other person, beside yourself, do you want notified of any hearings held or actions taken on this grievance? Name_ Victor Marrero Malling Address 6255 Sunset Blvd., Ste 721, Hollywood, 90028 His/Her role In grievance: Grlevant's Signature Dale I - I '-{ - J Immediate Supervisor's Signature-------------- -------

Form Gen. U.J :-.. 1.i~.J J CITY Of LOS ANGELES For management use only File No. Association/Union GRIEVANCE RESPONSE Unit INSTRUCTIONS Complete form and distribute in accordance with prescribed departmental procedures Grievant's Name (Please Print) Class title Filing of Grievance Initiation Kenneth James Hoerricks Police Surveillance Specialist I 1-8-14 Dept./Bureau and Division Section Level of Review (Check One) LAPD/Detective Informal 2nd 3"' Technical Laboratory Bureau/SID Discussion Level Level Level D 1 s1 x D D What are the issues involved in this grievance? **SEE ATTACHED** What is your decision? **SEE ATTACHED** What is the basis for your decision? **SEE ATTACHED** Names of Supervisors and other persons with whom this grievance was discussed: Charles Siegler Reviewer's Signature Title Reviewer's Name (Please Print) Dept./Bureau Division Doreen Hudson D/Detective Bureau SID Received by Grievant

Grievance Response No. Kenneth James Hoerricks LAPD/DETECTIVE BUREAU/SID Page2 What are the issues in this grievance? The grievant believes that he is entitled to weekday standby compensation in accordance with MOU 2, Article 6.5, Section 1. The Department compensates employees in the job classification of Police Surveillance Specialist in accordance with MOU 2, Article 6.5, Section IV. What is your decision? This grievance is denied because of lack of authority to address at this level. What is the basis for your decision? The class of Police Surveillance Specialist I was created by Ordinance No. 173442 dated August 7, 2000, to replace the class of Communications Electrician utilized at Scientific Investigation Division. An oversight occurred when this change in classification was not reflected in Article 6.5, Section IV of MOU No. 2 for the Building Trades regarding standby compensation. However, the Department has continued to appropriately compensate Police Surveillance Specialists for weekend and holiday standby in accordance with the provisions of Section IV since the change in classification in August 2000.

Form C '1'92) CITY Or Lv,, rw :3ELES GRIEVANCE APPEAL File No. Association/Union Unit INSTRUCTIONS For management use only Complete form and distribute in accordance with prescribed departmental procedures. Grievant's Name (Please Print) Class Title Kenneth J Hoerricks Police Surveillance Specialist 1 Dept./Bureau Division LAPD I Dective Bureau SID 1. I wish to appeal the Grievance Response signed by: (See Grievance Response) Filing of Grievance initiation 1/14/2014 Section Electronics Name Doreen Hudson Title Acting CO 1/23/2014 1A. Level to which grievance is being appealed: Check One 2 nd Level ~ 3'd Level D Arbitration D Authorized Employee Organization Representative (if arbitration requested) Signature Title Reason for Appeal r"-"" r~ V2- ~ ~+el\" (' (_ \/('---

In her r~sponsc, Ms. Hudson notes that "The class of Police Surviellance Specialist 1 was created by Ordinance No. 173422 dated August 7, 2000, to replace the class of Communications Electrician utilized at Scientific Investigation Division. An oversight occurred when this change of classification was not reflected in Article 6.5, Section IV of MOU No. 2 for the Building Trades regarding standby compensation." This is factually incorrect. Ordinance 173442 only ammends Ordinance No. 171773 to include the class of Police Surveillance Specialist 1 in the salary tables (Section 24(F)). There is no mention in either document of the class of Police Surveillance Specialist 1 replacing the class of Communication Electrician at LAPD SID. (Ordinances attached) Given that no language exists in the referenced Ordinances, and no language exists in MOU2 to equate the class of Communication Electrician to the class of Police Surveillance Specialist 1, the class of Police Surveillance Specialist 1 should be paid for working standby according to the terms of MOU2, Article 6.5, Section I. I therefore renew my request to be paid for working standby on the afformentioned dates in accordance with MOU2. Grievant's Signature ; /.~-- Received by: I r

ORDINANCE NO..1.7..._.3"'--4... 4... 2'---- An Ordinance amending Ordinance No. 171773 (1997-2001 Memorandum of Understanding for employees within the Building Trades Rank and File Representation Unit of the Los Angeles County Building and Construction Trades Council, AFL-CIO) to provide a salary for the new class of Police Surveillance Specialist I, Code 3687-1. THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Section 27(f) of Ordinance No. 171773 is hereby amended as follows: ADD: Code No. 3687-1 Title Police Surveillance Specialist I Salary Range No. or Biweekly Amount 2,211.20 BW Sec. 2. Section 1 shall be operative on March 1, 2000. Sec. 3. Section 27(g) of Ordinance No. 171773 is hereby amended as follows: ADD: Code No. 3687-1 Title Police Surveillance Specialist I Salary Range No. or Biweekly Amount 2,255.20 BW Sec. 4. Section 3 shall be operative on September 1, 2000. Sec. 5. Section 27(h) of Ordinance No. 171773 is hereby amended as follows: ADD: Code No. 3687-1 Title Police Surveillance Specialist I Salary Range No. or Biweekly Amount 2,300.80 BW REPEAL: Sec. 6. Section 5 shall be operative on March 1, 2001. Sec. 7. Section 28 of Ordinance No. 171773 is hereby amended as follows: Appendix I, Salary Note k: "Whenever a Communications Electrician, Code 3686, employed in the Police Department, is assigned to stake-out detail, such employee shall receive $10.20 for each day of such assignment in addition to his/her regular and premium compensation." Sec. 8. The City Controller and the Director of Administrative and Research Services are he:reby authorized to correct any technical or clerical errors in this Or'dinance.

- Sec. _9_. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage of this ordinance and cause the same to be published in some daily newspaper printed and published in the City of Los Angeles. I hereby certify that the foregoing ordinance was passed by the Council of the City of Los Angeles, at its meeting of AUG 0 J 2000 J. MICHAEL CAREY, CITY CLERK By Deputy ~ 07 'l.olltl. Approved Approved as to Form and Legality JAMES K. HAHN, City Attorney By~~~JL. DIANE N. WENTWORTH Assistant City Attorney File No. [)C) ~ f 2 20 #49576

ORDINANCE N0. 1_7_1_7_7_3 An Ordinance providing for the implementation of the 1997-2001 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU #2) entered into between the City's Management Representative (hereinafter City) and the Los Angeles County Building and Construction Trades Council, AFL-CIO (hereinafter Union) 'for the Building Trades Rank and File Representation Unit to provide employment benefits and salaries. THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES 00 ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The following salaries and employment benefits are provided for employees within the Building Trades Rank and File Representation Unit. Section 2. Subpoenaed Witness Compensation Unit employees shall have subpoenaed witness compensation administered in accordance with Article 1 O of the MOU between the City and the Union. Section 3. Jury Seryjce Unit employees shall have jury service administered in accordance with Article 11 of the MOU between the City and the Union. Section 4. Premium Pay Unit employees shall have premium pay administered in accordance with Article 14 of the MOU between the City and the Union. Section 5. Rest Periods Unit employees shall have rest periods administered in accordance with Article 18 of the MOU between the City and the Union. Section 6. Sick Leave Allowance Unit employees shall have sick leave allowance administered in accordance with Article 19 of the. MOU between the City and the Union. Section 7. Employee Benefits Unit employees shall have employee benefits administered in accordance with Article 20 of the MOU between the City and the Union. Section 8. Mileage Unit employees shall have mileage administered in accordance with Article 21 of the MOU between the City and the Union. Section 9. Health and Penta! Plans Unit employees shall have health and dental plans administered in accordance with Article 22 of the MOU between the City and the Union. Section 10. Family and Medical Leave Unit employees shall have family and medical leave administered in accordance with Article 23 of the MOU between the City and the Union. Section 11. Holidays and Holiday Pay Unit employees shall have holidays and holiday pay administered in accordance with Article 24 of the MOU between the City and the Union. Section 12. Police Department Deployment Period Unit employees shall have police department deployment administered in accordance with Article 25 of the MOU between the City and the Union. Section 13. Overtime Unit employees shall have overtime administered in accordance with Article 26 of the MOU between the City and the Union. Section 14. Call Back pay Unit employees shall have call back pay administered in accordance with Article 28 of the MOU between the City _?Ind the Union. Section 15. Retirement Benefits Unit employees shall have retirement benefits administered in accordance with Article 29 of the MOU between the City and the Union. _. -- ---~ -- -

Section 16. Acting Pay Unit employees shall have acting pay administered in accordance with Article 30 of the MOU between the City and the Union. Section 17. Grievance Representation Unit employees shall be entitled to reasonable time off for grievance representation in accordance,with Article 34 of the MOU between the City and the Union. Section. 18. Agency Shop Fees - Payroll Dues Deductions Unit employees shall have agency shop fees and payroll dues deductions administered in accordance with Article 36 of the MOU between the City and the Union. Section 19. License Fees Unit employees shall have license fees administered in accordance with Article 40 of the MOU between the City and the Union. Section 20. Reimbursement for Lost or Stolen Tools Unit employees shall have reimbursement for lost or stolen tools administered in accordance with Article 41 of the MOU between the City and the Union. Section 21. Standby Pa~ Unit employees shall have standby pay administered in accordance with Article 42 of the MOU between the City and the Union. Section 22. Workers Compensation Unit employees shall have workers compensation administered in accordance with Article 43 of the MOU between the City and the Union. Section 23. Tool and Clothing Allowance Unit employees shall have tool and clothing allowance administered in accordance with Article 47 of the MOU between the City and the Union. Section 24. Personal Leave Unit employees shall have personal leave administered in accordance with Article 48 of the MOU between the City and the Union. Section 25. Vacation Unit employees shall have vacation administered in accordance with Article 49 of the MOU between the City and the Union. Section 26. Bereavement Leave Unit employees shall have bereavement leave administered in accordance with Article 50 of the MOU between the City and the Union. Section 27. Salaries a. The salaries shown on Appendix A of this Ordinance are operative on September 1, 1997. b. The salaries shown on Appendix 8 of this Ordinance are operative on March 1, 1998 c. The salaries shown on Appendix C of this Ordinance are operative on September 1, 1998. d. The salaries shown on Appendix D of this Ordinance are operative on March 1, 1999. e. The salaries shown on Appendix E of this Ordinance are operative on September 1, 1999. f. The salaries shown on Appendix F of this Ordinance are operative on March 1, 2000. g. The salaries shown on Appendix G of this Ordinance are operative on September 1, 2000. h. The salaries shown on Appendix H of this Ordinance are operative on March 1, 2001. Section 28. Salary Notes Unit employees shall have salary notes administered in accordance with Appendix I of the MOU between the City and the Union. Section 29. The provisions of this Ordinance shall be operative as of September 1, 1997 unless otherwise indicated in MOU #2. Section 30. The City Controller and the City Administrative Officer are hereby authorized to correct any technical or clerical errors in this Ordinance. mou2ord.97

.. ~. "\. Sec. 31. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage of this ordinance and cause the same to be published in some daily newspaper printed and published in the City of Los Angeles. I hereby certify that the foregoing ordinance was passed by the Council of the City of Los Angeles, by a vote of not less than two-thirds of all of its members, at its meeting -of OCT 2 9 1997 r~ov o 4 too?l Approved ------- Approved as to Form and Legality October 9 1997 JAMES K. HAHN, City Attorney Deputy City Attorney FileNo. qj-j())? Form 238

Fonn Gen. 163 (R. 1/83) CITY OF LOS ANGELES For management use only File No. G 14-002 Association/Union LA/Orange Counties Building & Construction Trades Council GRIEVANCE RESPONSE INSTRUCTIONS Complete form and distribute in accordance with prescribed departmental procedures Unit Building Trades Grievant's Name (Please Print) Class title Filing of Grievance Initiation Kenneth Hoerricks, Serial No. N2288 Police Surveillance Specialist I January 14, 2014 Dept./Bureau and Division Section Level of Review (Check One) Police/Det. Bureau/Scientific Informal 1 Electronics Unit st 2"d 3rd Investigation Division Discussion Level Level Level What are the issues involved in this grievance? x I **SEE ATTACHED** What is your decision? **SEE ATTACHED** What is the basis for your decision? **SEE ATTACHED** Names of Supervisors and other persons with whom this grievance was discussed: Title Employee Relations Administrator J Dept./Bureau Division Commander Police/Chief of Staff Employee Relations Group Received by Grievant (Signature)

Grievance Response No. G 14-002 Hoerricks, Kenneth, Serial No. N2288 Police/Detective Bureau/Scientific Investigation Division Page 2 What are the issues in this grievance? Mr. Kenneth Hoerricks, Serial No. N2288, alleged that he deserves compensation for working standby from December 25, 2013 to December 28, 2013. Thus, he alleged that no language exists in MOU 2 to equate the class of CE to the class of PSS I, as such he claimed that he should be paid for working standby according to MOU 2, Article 6.5, Section I, not Section IV. As a remedy, he requests his standby time be paid under same Article 6.5, Section I. What is your decision? The grievance is denied. What is the basis for your decision? BACKGROUND Ordinance No. 171773 (as it was referenced in Ordinance No. 173442) provided for the implementation of the 1997-2001 MOU No. 2 pertaining to the employment benefits and salaries for the members of the Los Angeles County Building and Construction Trades Council (the Union); and was approved by former Mayor Richard Riordan on November 4, 1997. The Los Angeles Police Department (Department) requested a new class of Police Surveillance Specialist to replace the CE positions assigned to the Electronics Section of SID. The rationale was the CE positions in SID had become more specialized, with greater emphasis placed on performing electronic surveillance responsibilities. As a result, the CE's believed their promotional opportunities were limited. Thus, the creation of the new class was warranted to recognize such specialization. On October 8, 1999, the Civil Service Commission adopted the new class of PSS I based on the Department's request. On June 19, 2000, former City Administrative Officer William T. Fujioka submitted his report (CAO File No. 0410-04666-0000) to the City Council for establishing the PSS I's salary. The City met with the Union over this issue. Both parties agreed that the PSS I's would make a certain percentage higher than the CE's. On August 7, 2000, the same Mayor approved the salary for the new class of PSS I; the Ordinance No. 173442 repealed Salary Note k: "Whenever a Communications Electrician, Code 3686, employed in the Police Department, is assigned to stake-out detail, such employee shall receive $10.20 for each day of such assignment in addition to his/her regular and premium compensation."

Grievance Response No. G 14-002 Hoerricks, Kenneth, Serial No. N2288 Police/Detective Bureau/Scientific Investigation Division Page3 Furthermore, Section eight of the same Ordinance gave the City Controller and the Director of Administrative and Research Services (now City Administrative Officer) the authorities to correct any technical and clerical errors. A new class of PSS I was established to replace the CE's assigned to stake-out detail (at SID) in the Department. ANALYSIS One of the job requirements for the former CE's (now PSS l's) at SID in the Department was to standby during weekdays, weekends and holidays to support the sworn personnel when they called from the field or crime scenes with electronics problems. The Department's practice has been these CE's were reimbursed under MOU 2, Article 6.5, Section IV (see below) if they were standing by. Section IV Notwithstanding the above, employees in the Police Department in the class of Communication Electrician, Code 3686, shall receive standby compensation at the rate specified below when assigned to standby during their off-duty hours: Communication Electricians assigned to standby on weekends or holidays shall receive one hour compensation at straight time for every six hours they are required to standby. Employees assigned to weekday standby will not be compensated for standby time. At the inception of the new class (PSS I), the CE's at SID did not take a promotional Civil Service Test to become eligible to be certified for the PSS I positions. Eight CE's who performed stake-out detail at SID were legally employed and promoted to become PSS I's on August 16, 2000; nine days after Ordinance No. 173442 was approved. Two of the original eight CE's still work at the Electronics Unit in SID. They told the Employee Relations investigator that they had never received standby compensation for weekdays, nor when holidays fell on weekdays; rather they received one hour compensation at straight time for every six hours for weekends when they were required to standby as CE's. They receive the standby pay in the same manner now. The intent of the Department to pay the PSS I's standby time has not changed all this time, neither the terms nor conditions of employment. For the past 13 years and eight months, the Department did NOT pay the PSS I's for Standing by under Section I (see below); but Section IV. Section I Persons employed in this Unit who are subject to call during the employee's off-duty hours on a regularly scheduled work day, or anytime during the employees' regularly scheduled off-duty day, shall receive, when assigned to standby, in addition to any other compensation provided for herein, the sum of $2. 00 for each hour assigned to standby. When called and required to report to work, the employee will be compensated in accordance with Article 6. 8 of this MOU

Grievance Response No. G 14-002 Hoerricks, Kenneth, Serial No. N2288 Police/Detective Bureau/Scientific Investigation Division Page 4 Employees will not receive pay o/$2.00 per hour for any time the employee is receiving call back pay. There is no record indicating that the Union and Management discussed Standby Pay for the new class of PSS I when they met to discuss its salary. The MOU No. 2 is silent on the Standby pay for the PSS I's. Thus, the practice of the Department paying the PSS I's standby time is enforceable as though it is written into the MOU after considering the following facts: ~ the practice to pay the PSS I's under Article 6.5, Section IV of the MOU 2 exists for the past 13 years and 8 months; ~ the standby time (from 2230 to 0600 hours or when the PM Watch PSS I is not available, on weekends and holidays) has been daily. An example to reimburse employees on Standby is provided on page 31 of MOU No. 2. Weekend Standby: Friday 1700 to Monday 0700 = 62 hours. Employee called back/or a total of 6 hours; 62-6 = 56 total hours on standby 6 = 9.3 hours of straight time compensation. One witness told Employee Relations investigator that he received six calls in a year on weeknights while assigned to standby duty; and ~ the practice and the Department's action are known and accepted by the effected employees, Management and the Union (not a single written complaint pertaining to this issue from the Union until now) since August 7, 2000. DECISION Based on the foregoing, the grievance is denied.

Form Gen. 164 (9/92) CITY OF LOS ANGELES GRIEVANCE APPEAL File No. Association/Union Unit For management use only INSTRUCTIONS Complete form and distribute in accordance with prescribed departmental procedures. Grievant's Name (Please Print) Class Title Kenneth J Hoerricks Police Surveillance Specialist 1 Dept./Bureau Division LAPD I Dective Bureau SID Filing of Grievance initiation 1114/2014 Section Electronics 1. I wish to appeal the Grievance Response signed by: (See Grievance Response) Name Beatrice N. Girmala Title Police I Chief of Staff 3/26/2014 1A. Level to which grievance is being appealed: Check One 2nd Level D 3rd Level ~ Arbitration D Authorized Employee Organization Representative (if arbitration requested) Signature Title Reason for Appeal See attached (7 Grievant's Signatu;~ ' Received by: l.... ~- -., / I / / / Immediate Supervisor's Signature i21-/l( (

The essence of the response from Commander Grimala lies within two points. One, the actual language of MOU 2 is not relevant to the discussion. Two, the LAPD has been out of compliance with the actual language of MOU 2 for many years in spite of the may protests received at the Unit level that have not been allowed to move forward, thus it will continue to interpret MOU 2 as it sees fit. I am again asking the LAPD to honor MOU 2's language and correctly compensate myself and my fellow employees for stand-by work. It should be noted that the grievable incident occurred in relation to a specific pay period. There have been many more pay periods since the grievance was initiated, as well as more to follow until this issue is resolved. At the end of each pay period wherein I work stand-by, I went to initiate a new grievance with my supervisor. I was instructed by the AOIC of the Technical Laboratory - SID, Charles Siegler (my supervisor at the time), that all of these incidents would be included in the grievance. The dates of the incidents were provided to the investigator from ERG in an interview that was also attended by my Local Union's Business Representative as well as a representative from LA/OC Building Trades. This information was not included in the grievance response from Commander Grimala. Background In her response, Commander Grimala recalls a number of actions that occurred prior to my employment with the LAPD in her background information. At no time have I been a Communications Electrician with the City of Los Angeles or the LAPD. I tested for and was hired as a Police Surveillance Specialist 1. To the best of my knowledge, no one involved in this grievance process was present at the negotiations when the LAPD Communication Electrician positions were converted. There are no records pertaining to the negotiations other than the actual ordinances, and the many versions of MOU 2 that have followed. The Commander thus makes the following four critical errors: 1. (Page 2) "... the CE's believed their promotional opportunities were limited. Thus, the creation of the new class was warranted to recognize such specialization." False. In creating the class of Police Surveillance Specialist, the employee is removed from the CE career path. The CE career path is much longer - Senior, Supervising Senior, etc., and offers far more opportunities city wide that than of Police Surveillance Specialist. The Police Surveillance Specialist l's only promotional opportunity is to Police Surveillance Specialist 2, of which there is only one authority in the City. Thus, not only is the statement false, but it is not relevant to the grievance. 2. (Page 2) "... Both parties argeed that the PSS l's would make a certain percentage higher that the CE's." Mostly false. The CE's at the LAPD SID were already making 7% more than their counterparts around the Department and the City. This was a premium, or "hazard pay." But, it was a bonus. The creation of the new class converted the bonus pay to salary. But, as in the above, this commentary is not relevant to the grievance. 3. (Page 3) Commander Grimala also notes in her background discussion "Section eight of the same Ordinance gave the City Controller and the Director of Administrative and Research Services (now City Administrative Officer) the authorities to correct any technical and clerical errors." Misleading. The Ordinance states (Section 21) "Unit employees shall have stand by pay

administered in accordance with Article 42 of the MOU between the City and the Union." Article 42 is now MOU 2 Article 6. At no time was the language regarding stand by compensation changed to reflect the LAPD's opinion on the change in class from CE. Additionally, the LAPD still employs CEs at ITD (Page 4). It is my contention that Article 6.5, Section IV still applies to the LAPD CE's as they are not substantially burdened with stand-by requests, but Article 6.5, Section I applies to the Police Surveillance Specialist who is thus burdened according to the FLSA. None of the issues surrounding this burden, FLSA, or recent case law that I brought up in the interview with ERG were mentioned in the response. http://afge3377.org/uploads/flsamanual.pdf Herein lies the FLSA issue, as the above link illustrates: 1. Are there restrictions in movement of on call-employees? Is an employee tied to their phone? Yes and Yes. Article 6.5, Section IV states, "Employees required to standby will be at home and will provide their supervisors with a telephone number, or be within range where they can be contacted by a pager if so equipped." "Employees must be able to respond to Parker Center within an hour of being summoned." Thus, we are required to be near our phones at all times and within an hour of "the office." 2. Are there restrictions in physical location of on-call employees? Is an employee tied to a specific location during the call-back time? Yes again, "Employees must be able to respond to Parker Center within an hour of being summoned." Thus, we are required to be within an hour of "the office." 3. Are there restrictive report or callback requirements for on-call employees? Must an employee report for duty or phone-in within a certain time period after the callback? Yes again, "Employees must be able to respond to Parker Center within an hour of being summoned." Thus, we are required to be within an hour of "the office." Additionally, we are expected to pick up the call from RACR when it rings. 4. What are the penalties, if any, for failure to respond to a call-back? Yes. "Employees who refuse standby assignments or fail to respond as provided herein may be subject to discipline." See also http://pdinfoweb/files/divssects/fod/references/guide to Civilian FLSA Compliance.pdf http://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/callbackandstandbytime.pdf California's Dept. of Labor issued the above linked opinion on stand-by time in 2011. I have provided this information to my supervisor and to my Local Union Business Representative. "Whether on-call or standby time off the work site is considered compensable must be determined by looking at the restrictions placed on the employee. A variety of factors are considered in determining whether the employer-imposed restrictions turn the on-call time into compensable "hours worked." These factors, set out in a federal case, Berry v. County of

Sonoma (1994) 30 F.3d 1174, include whether there are excessive geographic restrictions on the employee's movements; whether the frequency of calls is unduly restrictive; whether a fixed time limit for response is unduly restrictive; whether the on-call employee can easily trade his or her on-call responsibilities with another employee; and whether and to what extent the employee engages in personal activities during on-call periods." See comments from above. The answer to all the above is yes. This issue came from a holiday period. Being of northern European (Scottish) descent, my family celebrates both Christmas and Boxing Day (the day after Christmas). lfl am on-call, then my activities as regards the holiday celebrations would be restricted. This is why I began the discussion again as to standby a full two months ahead of the holiday - upon receiving the Deployment Schedule that covered a holiday in which a substantial portion of my extended family would be visiting my house. So, whilst my guests would be enjoying copious amounts of adult beverages at my home, I would have to refrain from drinking at all as I may be called at any moment and would be expected by the LAPD to be completely sober. If I am not on-call, working, then I am free from restraint and can enjoy the company of my guests as well as several drams of Scotland's finest malts. If I am not under a time restraint, I can explore the mountains in my back yard with my guests in which there is no mobile phone reception. I can be gone for a while and check messages when I return. lfl have to run down the mountain to the store, I can't bring any of my children with me as I may get called and have to report for duty - giving me no time to return home to drop the kids and groceries off. http://pdinfoweb/files/reflib/manualsguides/departmentmanual/2013 _ Q2Manual/Index.htm 3/708.2 - "Importantly, the Department has no "unwritten" policy that employees work overtime without compensation. Department policy is that all overtime worked shall be reported so that employees can be properly compensated. Moreover, there is no unofficial overtime tracking system "white time" or any other method that is inconsistent with established Department policies and procedures." As indicated above, given the substantial burden/restrictions, we are "working" according to the FLSA and current case law. The Manual clearly states that there is no "unwritten policy that employees work overtime without compensation." Yet, Commander Grimala insists that such an "unwritten rule" does exist, thus we are not entitled to compensation. http://pdinfoweb/index. php?option=com _ content&task=view&id=2627 &ltemid=o - "All employees must report all overtime worked, and all supervisors must ensure that employees are reporting all overtime worked. Watch commanders, watch supervisors, and other employees are not permitted to work uncompensated overtime to prepare for roll call or any other duties. A failure to follow these rules is misconduct and will lead to disciplinary action." 4. (Page 4) The frequency of calls during the week is not an issue. Everyone in police services knows how quickly things can go from peaceful to an emergency. In June of 2013, whist at home on a "forced TO," the SID chain of command forgot to remove me from the on-call roster sent to RACR. I picked up the phone call whilst cooking my family's evening meal. Two undercover officers from Wilshire Division had been ambushed on their way into the parking lot and RHD/FID needed assistance. I contacted my CO and received permission to go back on duty, from the "forced TO" status, and responded. It was so important was it that I respond quickly to the scene, RHD's CO approved an air ship to pick me up at the nearest air strip to my house. In

this case, Lancaster's Fox Field. Again, it's not the frequency of calls that matters. It is the nature of the emergency that counts. When RACR calls, there is an expectation that we will pick up the phone and respond quickly to the emergency. Finally, Commander Grimala notes in her analysis of my Grievance that two Police Surveillance Specialists were interviewed by the Employee Relations Group investigator. The investigator reported that these two were Communications Electricians in the Electronics Unit when the positions were converted. The investigator correctly reported that the employees interviewed had never been compensated for weekday standby since the position was converted. The investigator, however, failed to report much of the rest of the conversation. One of the interviewees was the Acting OIC of the Electronics Unit on several occasions and had received my many verbal complaints regarding this issue over the years (page 4, no record of complaints). He was one of the many supervisors over the years who instructed me that this issue is not grievable. What Commander Grimala fails to mention is anything from my second witness, Charles Siegler. His comments are not included at all. As Acting OIC of the Technical Laboratory, he's been a central part of this discussion going back years. Commander Grimala also makes no mention of my previous supervisor's (Det. III Keith Aulick) interpretation of our MOU as reported during the grievance interview with ERG's investigator. Det. Aulick said many times on the issue, that we answer the phone as a courtesy... but are not required to do so. Since we all signed for the FSLA notices saying that we can't work "white time" (Special Order 24) and that all work shall be compensated, this made sense. If we pick up the phone during the week, it's up to us. If we don't, we don't." To conclude, that there is no record at ERG of these issues is not relevant evidence, other than evidence of a lack of communication on this issues up the chain of command. That my many supervisors did not forward my complaints, or properly receive my many attempts at grieving this issue over the years should not be held against me. That my Local Union's representation didn't specifically notify the LAPD that you were out of compliance on this issue, assuming that the LAPD was honoring the MOU, should not be held against me. I am not as well versed in the maze that is the civil service bureaucracy. Finally, I have overcome objections, obfuscations, claims of ignorance, and tactical maneuvers and found the correct way to document /attempt to fix this error. I am simply asking the LAPD to finally fix this error. Nevertheless, Commander Grimala essentially says that the LAPD has gotten away with not following the MOU for this long, and should be allowed to continue to do so. In my interview with the ERG investigator, I stated that I am not looking for anything other than a correction to this problem. I wish to be correctly compensated according to the terms of the MOU. I wish this as well for my coworkers. (The representative from LNOC Building Trades was not so charitable in his assessment of the LAPD's position on the matter, seeing this is a massive FLSA violation and desiring back pay for all affected employees. That matter is being discussed elsewhere.) I am therefore restating my request for compensation under the terms of MOU 2, Article 6.5, Section I for all stand-by worked by me since December 25 1 h, 2013 and submitted on form 02.24.00 to my Supervisor for approval (attached).

Form Gen. 164 (9/92) CITY OF LOS ANGELES GRIEVANCE APPEAL File No. Association/Union Unit INSTRUCTIONS For management use only Complete form and distribute in accordance with prescribed departmental procedures. Grievant's Name (Please Print) Class Title Kenneth J Hoerricks Police Surveillance Specialist 1 Dept./Bureau Division LAPD I Dective Bureau SID 1. I wish to appeal the Grievance Response signed by: (See Grievance Response) Name Beatrice N. Girmala Title Police I Chief of Staff Filing of Grievance initiation 1/14/2014 Section. Electronics 3/26/2014 1 A. Level to which grievance is being appealed: Check One 2 d Level D 3rd Level r8j Arbitration D Authorized Employee Organization Representative (if arbitration requested) Signature Title Reason for Appeal See attached [ I ~ ~ - ~- -.. ~.-~--~:,~- - 1,_ / I'd! :r I,..,, J Grievant's Signatur~....: ~. c_ ~ _,.:~--/ Received by: : i Immediate Supervisor's Signature ~...-'.'.'.: ~,,,,/---~-~==~-=-- 'Y '--.- -- 3"' 1)u.-

Form Gen. 163 (R. 1/83) CITY OF LOS ANGELES GRIEVANCE RESPONSE For management use only File No. G-14-002 LNOrange Counties Building & Construction Association/Unioh Trades Council Unit Building Trades INSTRUCTIONS Complete form and distribute in accordance with prescribed departmental procedures. Grievant's Name (Please Print) Kenneth Hoerricks, Serial No. N2288 DepUBureau and Division LAPD/Detective Bureau /Scientific Investigation Division Section Electronics Unit Wl1at are the issues involved in this gnevance? I Class Title _l Police Surveillance Specialist I Level of Review (Check One) Informal Filing of Grievance Initiation January 14, 2014 l lvl Discussion D 1" Level D 2" 0 Level D 3' 0 Level~ SEE ATTACHED What is your decision? SEE ATTACHED What is the basis for your decision? SEE ATTACHED Names of Supervisors and other persons with whom this grievance was discussed Title Police Commissioner DeptJBureau Police Commission Division Employee Relations Section Received by Grievant ---- ------,===--------- s1gnatvre> -------------

Grievance No. G-14-002 Police Surveillance Specialist I Kenneth Hoerricks, Serial No. N2288 LAPD/Detective Bureau/Scientific Investigation Division Page 2 What are the issues involved in this grievance? The grievant, Police Surveillance Specialist I Kenneth Hoerricks, alleges that he deserves to be compensation for working standby form December 25, 2013 through December 28, 2013. I-le alleges that no language exists in MOU No. 2 to equate the class of Communications Electrician to the classification of Police Surveillance Specialist I. As such, he should be paid for working standby according to MOU No. 2, Article 6.5, Section J, not Section IV. What is your decision? Deny the grievance. What is the basis for your decision? In 1999, all Communications Electricians who worked in Scientific Investigation Division's Electronics Unit were reallocated to Police Surveillance Specialists. One of the responsibilities of the Communications Electricians was to be on standby for immediate response to emergency situations. As compensation, the Communications Electricians received one hour at straight time for every six hours that they were required to be on standby on weekends or holidays. They were not compensated for being on standby during the week. The practice of compensating one hour at straight time for every six hours that they are required to standby continued and has continued since the Communications Electricians became Police Surveillance Specialists. In December 20 I 3, the grievant submitted his overtime reports or "greenies" for the time that he was assigned to standby from December 25, 2013 through December 28, 2013. Instead of requesting to be compensated at the usual rate, the grievant requested to be compensated at the rate of $2.00 per hour, in accordance to MOU No. 2, Article 6.5, Section I. Although the grievant requested to be compensated in accordance to MOU No. 2, Article 6.5, Section I, it has been past practice to compensate Police Surveil lance Specialists according to Article 6.5, Section IV of MOU No. 2. Therefore, it is recommended that the grievance be denied.