Dear Members:

As most of you should be aware, COBA has for several years taken the position that a facility search policy needed to be negotiated and implemented with the Dept/County with the full intent of providing as safe and healthy a work place as possible for our Members. This particularly with the K2 and fentanyl problem that has plagued us along with numerous inmate overdoses and fatalities. Addressing this problem has been long overdue.

To date, the dept has not taken any position regarding a search policy, through several County and Departmental administrations. Our only belief for why the county has failed to do so is that implementing such a policy would create posts and God forbid, cost money. We saw an attempt to address the problem recently with the clear plastic bag issue.

With all that in mind, COBA was made aware a few weeks ago that the Dept intended to secure a new K9 dog for use by the Internal Affairs Unit. The exact job duties of how that K9 was to be used by IA has yet to be fully explained. This immediately drew the ire of the Union because we believed that the Dept was going to have IA in some manner, searching staff. If this was the intent, at the very least, it is outside the purview of IA. After numerous contentious conversations with the County re this issue, COBA was advised that the Internal Affairs Unit will not be getting a K9 dog.

Then, approx one week ago, a Job Posting was put out by HR seeking an “Investigator” in the K9 Unit. The Union began inquiries as to the purpose of placing an Investigator in K9 instead of simply a Correction Officer? Also, why current K9 Officers weren’t being designated as an Investigator if they claimed one was needed? The only definite reply to our inquiries was that, as per the Contract, it is in the Sheriff’s Discretion who is deemed an investigator and in what units. While this is true, the Dept also plays very fast and loose with what terms of the contract they choose to cite and follow when it suits them.

Once again, after numerous conversations with the Dept and County, it appears that this new K9, while assigned to the K9 Unit and not IA, will nonetheless have some job duty related to searches at the facility. Although no policy or plan has yet been revealed or discussed with the Union.

Again, to be clear, COBA is fully supportive of a comprehensive, fair and reasonable search policy for this facility, and has demanded it countless times for the safety of our members. But the manner in which the Dept has been addressing this issue at this point has been problematic.

Upon the issuance of last week's job posting for an Investigator in K9, COBA put the Dept, the County and Labor Relations on notice via email that while COBA is fully aware that under NYS Law (7-CRR-NY 200.2) anyone, including employees entering a Correctional Facility are subject to search, we fully intend/demand to formulate a Health and Safety Labor Management Committee as is also delineated in our contract for the purpose of fairly formulating any such search policy.

We also conferred with the leadership of CSEA on this issue since their employees would also be affected by the implementation of any such policy.

They have offered the assistance of their labor attorney to assist our attorneys in any legal matter that may arise.  

To date, we have not received a response from the County/Dept on our request to formulate a committee to address this issue.

We will keep you updated on what transpires as this issue progresses, and we assure you that if the county takes any unilateral action in violation of our members legal rights, it will be met with swift and decisive action.

We all want to work in a safe and healthy environment, and strive to do it in a cooperative manner.

How we get there and do it properly is what's at issue here.  

In Unity;

Brian Sullivan, COBA President