Side Letter Which Postponed the Mandate to Take Effect July 1

In late June 2025, CSLEA and various other employee recognized representatives negotiated side letters which postponed Executive Order N-22-25 which would have required that all State employees with limited exceptions return to at least four (4) days of in person work. The previous post-pandemic requirement was a minimum of two (2) days of in person work. The Unit 7 side letter also entitled CSLEA to request that CalHR meet and confer regarding the reinstitution of the postponed EO.  As reported previously, in CSLEA Commences Bargaining with CalHR on Return to Office Mandate, CSLEA did meet with CalHR and subsequently passed proposals to either further postpone the implementation in light of the increased fuel costs caused by the ongoing Middle East conflict, or to mitigate the impacts of the implementation.  CSLEA and CalHR continue to have dialogue regarding the proposals and CSLEA continues to monitor AB 1729 which may impact telework eligibility in light of its economic justification requirements.

In response SEIU Local 1000 filed an Unfair Practice Charge against the State contending that CalHR has engaged in surface bargaining on the issue and the side letter it negotiated did not eliminate its ability to bargain over the decision to reinstitute the EO.  It is unclear whether SEIU has sought injunctive relief through the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) which, if successful, would prevent the EO from taking effect pending the outcome of PERB proceedings.

CSLEA does have a MOU which is in effect, the duration of which has been extended via side letter to June 30, 2027. Article 7.12 of the MOU contains provisions regarding Telecommuting which limit CSLEA’s meet and confer rights to the impact of the discontinuance of a telecommuting agreement as opposed to the decision itself.  The provision prohibits the State from discontinuing telecommuting arrangements for arbitrary and capricious reasons and limits a grievance over the discontinuance to the CalHR level of review.  Despite ample evidence of the cost savings to both the State in terms of lease payment obligations and to employees in reduced commuting costs, the Governor’s Office contends that benefits in terms of workplace mentoring, training and collaboration outweigh such benefits. Regardless of whether one agrees with this rationale in light of the amount of employee interaction which is now done via video conference (even when employees are in office) it appears to satisfy the operational need requirement to defeat a claim that the reasons for the change are arbitrary and capricious. Further, given that the implementation directive is being done via EO, there is no likelihood that CalHR would grant a grievance if it were filed.

CSLEA will continue to engage with CalHR on the bargaining proposals it has submitted and will monitor the legal and legislative remedies being sought.  To the extent that the EO takes effect, CSLEA will assist members on a case-by-case basis concerning the impact of the change and will also advocate for a return to telework flexibility with the incoming administration.