FUPOA — History, Unionization, and Collective Bargaining

I. The Legal Framework: HEERA and the Right to Organize

The legal foundation for unionization of University of California employees is the Higher Education Employer-Employee Relations Act (HEERA), codified at Government Code Section 3560 et seq. HEERA was enacted in 1979 and is administered by the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB). HEERA grants UC employees the right to form, join, and participate in the activities of employee organizations of their own choosing for the purpose of representation on all matters of employer-employee relations and for the purpose of meeting and conferring over those matters. Employees also have the right to refuse to join employee organizations or to participate in their activities.

After the enactment of HEERA in 1979, PERB made a number of determinations about appropriate bargaining units at the University of California and conducted representation elections. Under HEERA, a bargaining unit is a group of titles with a sufficient "community of interest" — similar working environment, occupational category, level of education — that a union can reasonably represent the employees in the unit, particularly in the negotiation of wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment.

HEERA Section 3571 specifically protects employees from employer interference with organizing rights. Section 3571(a) makes it unlawful for the higher education employer to "impose or threaten to impose reprisals on employees, to discriminate or threaten to discriminate against employees, or otherwise to interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees because of their exercise of rights guaranteed by this chapter." Section 3571(b) prohibits the employer from denying to employee organizations the rights guaranteed to them by HEERA. Section 3571(c) prohibits the employer from refusing or failing to engage in meeting and conferring with an exclusive representative.

II. Origins of FUPOA: Founding in the Early 1990s

The Federated University Police Officers' Association (FUPOA) was founded in the early 1990s by Charles A. Harold, Jr., Badge #341, a sworn peace officer with the UCLA Police Department. Harold served as the organizer, founder, and first president of FUPOA. FUPOA was the first statewide law enforcement bargaining unit in the history of the University of California Police Department system.

The founding of FUPOA occurred against the backdrop of significant institutional turmoil at UCLA PD. As documented in the UCLA Luskin Center for History and Policy's publication "History of Racism and the Quest for Racial Justice at UCLA" (March 2022, pages 35–36), Harold's whistleblowing activities during this period led to the termination of the Chief of Police and command staff. The founding of the union and the whistleblowing activities were related events: Harold's exposure of institutional misconduct — including the sale of police vehicles for cash, missing VIN numbers and license plates, ghost payroll, and other irregularities — created the institutional conditions that demonstrated the need for organized officer representation.

The Los Angeles Times covered these events in at least two articles: on February 25, 1993, and on April 24, 1994. The Daily Bruin (UCLA's student newspaper) provided additional coverage. The UC Davis California Aggie reported on UC police misconduct patterns on October 19, 1992, during UC President Jack Peltason's inauguration at UC Davis, where UCLA police officers deployed in riot gear outside the ceremony.

Harold's contemporaneous records document that the initial attempt at officer organization at UCLA PD preceded FUPOA's formal founding. When elections were held for a departmental Police Officers' Association (POA) at UCLA PD, Harold was nominated for president and other positions. Per Harold's contemporaneous record: "When news of my nomination reached management, I was contacted by Lt. Vandenberg and others who told me it probably would not be a good idea for me to accept the nomination because management was looking at releasing me from probation because of my outspoken attitude. I declined the nomination in fear of being fired." Harold's subsequent founding of FUPOA as a statewide organization occurred after his probationary period no longer served as a threat mechanism.

The NLRB Filing, the FLSA Victory, and the Power Grab

Harold’s organizing effort began not with the Secretary of State but with the National Labor Relations Board. The initial filing to establish FUPOA as a recognized bargaining unit was made through the NLRB — not as a corporate incorporation. The 2003 Secretary of State filing that appears in California business records was a later administrative act, filed years after Harold had already left UCLA PD, and was not Harold’s doing. By that time, the organization Harold had founded had passed into other hands.

The FLSA overtime case Harold filed on January 19, 1996 (Case No. 2:96-cv-00396-WDK-AJW) resulted in a $199,126.71 settlement for UC police officers systemwide. The impact was substantial — one officer used his share of the overtime recovery to buy a house. But Harold himself never received a penny of the overtime he had fought to secure. By the time the settlement was distributed, he had been medically separated from UCLA PD and was no longer on the payroll. The man who got every other officer paid was the one officer who never got his own overtime.

The takeover came on a night Harold was not present to defend himself. In May 1999 — during the week of the Star Wars: Episode I Los Angeles premiere — Harold was attending a Fox Studios pre-theatrical screening at the Century City main cinema, part of his duties as a Fox employee. That same evening, a group of officers held a meeting at Monte’s Steak House in Westwood and voted Harold out of the FUPOA presidency. Harold was not notified of the meeting, was not present for the vote, and learned of it after the fact. A UCSD officer and a Berkeley officer carved up the campus directorships between them. The organization Harold had built from nothing was taken from him while he sat in a movie theater.

Years later, a former FUPOA member contacted Harold asking for his original NLRB organizing papers. The officer wanted to use them to challenge the post-takeover campus breakup structure. Harold declined.

III. PERB Certification and Bargaining Unit Recognition

FUPOA was certified by the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) as the exclusive representative of the Police Officers Unit, designated as bargaining unit "PA" (Police Officers Unit 1). The class and title code included in Unit 1 is Police Officer (5323). The certification covers nonsupervisory police officers who provide the full range of law enforcement services at all UC campuses.

FUPOA's formal incorporation as a California Domestic Corporation was filed on June 16, 2003, as documented in California Secretary of State business records.

The organizational structure of FUPOA includes a systemwide president and a local FUPOA representative (Campus Director) at each of the ten UC campuses. The current collective bargaining agreement provides for "one (1) Campus Director for each campus and one (1) system wide FUPOA President." This structure mirrors the decentralized organizational design of the UC police system itself, with local representation at each autonomous campus department coordinated through systemwide leadership.

The distinction between supervisory and nonsupervisory officers has been the subject of PERB adjudication. In PERB Decision No. 2217-H (September 7, 2021), FUPOA filed a unit modification petition (Case No. SF-UM-661-H) seeking to include police sergeants in the rank-and-file bargaining unit. The Board upheld the Administrative Law Judge's dismissal of the petition, concluding that "contrary to FUPOA's contentions, sergeants should be excluded from the rank-and-file unit in order to allow the University to effectively achieve its mission without undue conflict of interest." The Board found that University sergeants, unlike their counterparts at the California State University (CSU) system, "perform supervisory work on more than a sporadic or atypical basis" and "exercise independent judgment" in the imposition of formal discipline. The Board noted, however, that HEERA Section 3581.1 grants supervisory employees the right to their own representation, and that dismissing FUPOA's petition "does not disenfranchise sergeants, nor deny sergeants the opportunity for full and fair bargaining rights."

IV. FUPOA’s Role in Institutional Oversight: The FLSA Case

One of the earliest and most consequential actions taken through the organizing efforts that culminated in FUPOA was a federal lawsuit filed under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq. The case, University Police Officers v. Regents of the University of California, was filed on January 19, 1996, in the United States District Court for the Central District of California (Case No. 2:96-cv-00396-WDK-AJW). The lawsuit alleged that the University of California had failed to pay sworn UC police officers compensatory overtime as required by the FLSA.

The officers prevailed in the case. The result was a settlement requiring UC to pay overtime compensation to all sworn UC police officers systemwide. The settlement amount was $199,126.71. The case established the principle that UC police officers, despite being employed by a constitutionally autonomous public institution, were covered by federal wage and hour protections.

The FLSA includes specific anti-retaliation protections. 29 U.S.C. § 215(a)(3) makes it unlawful for any person "to discharge or in any other manner discriminate against any employee because such employee has filed any complaint or instituted or caused to be instituted any proceeding under or related to this chapter, or has testified or is about to testify in any such proceeding."

V. FUPOA as a Named Plaintiff: Jacobs v. The Regents of the University of California

FUPOA appeared as a named plaintiff in Jacobs et al. v. The Regents of the University of California, Case No. B268758, decided by the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Two, filed May 30, 2017, and certified for publication June 27, 2017 (11 Cal.App.5th 1). The case addressed the eligibility of UC police officers receiving Duty Disability Income (DDI) for retired officer identification cards and concealed carry weapons (CCW) endorsements under California Penal Code § 16690.

The Gold Book — the Universitywide Police Policies and Administrative Procedures — addresses this same issue. General Order 21-02 (GO 21-02), Section 1700.1(b)(1), states: "An officer receiving duty disability income has not retired or separated from the University of California and is therefore not eligible for a retiree identification card or retiree CCW privileges and is not considered a 'qualified retired and separated peace officer.'"

The Jacobs case addressed limitations under state Penal Code § 16690 eligibility for DDI recipients seeking state-law retired identification cards and concealed weapons endorsements. The case did not address, analyze, or rule on federal LEOSA (Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act) eligibility under 18 U.S.C. § 926C(c)(3)(B), which contains separate eligibility criteria for qualified retired law enforcement officers to carry concealed firearms nationwide.

FUPOA is identified in the case record as "the exclusive bargaining representative for nonsupervisory peace officers of the University of California," representing "more than 250 members" at the time of the litigation.

VI. The Collective Bargaining Agreements: A Chronological Record

FUPOA's negotiating history with the University of California is documented through a series of collective bargaining agreements and public-record events. While FUPOA's first agreement was negotiated in the mid-to-late 1990s (as documented by the interim Rights Agreement referenced in PERB Decision No. 1271-H), the publicly documented contract timeline is as follows:

VII. FUPOA’s Policy Consultation Role: Gold Book and Systemwide Policy

FUPOA plays a documented consultative role in the development and revision of systemwide UC police policy, most significantly the Universitywide Police Policies and Administrative Procedures (the "Gold Book"). During the 2021 Gold Book revision process, the UC Academic Senate's review document stated that the proposed policy changes were "reviewed by the Federated University Police Officers Association (FUPOA) and revisions were made based on those conversations." The document further stated that the revised policies had been "approved by both the UC Chiefs of Police and FUPOA" prior to submission for systemwide review.

FUPOA's consultative role in the Gold Book revision included specific input on body-worn video (BWV) policy. The 2021 BWV policy provided that "the method of random selection will be agreed upon between the Federated University Police Officers Association (FUPOA) and the UC Council of Chiefs." This provision established FUPOA as a joint participant — alongside management — in establishing the methodology for auditing officer body camera compliance.

The Gold Book's 2021 Concealed Carry Weapons (CCW) policy was drafted "on the recommendation of the Systemwide Council of Chiefs of Police to adopt a systemwide and consistent policy on the issuance of concealed carry weapons to qualified retired police officers." This policy directly intersected with the Jacobs v. Regents case in which FUPOA was a named plaintiff, creating a documented institutional intersection between the union's litigation history and the systemwide policy framework governing its members' post-retirement rights.

VIII. PERB Unfair Labor Practice Cases Involving FUPOA

The Public Employment Relations Board's published decisions document multiple cases involving FUPOA and the University of California, reflecting the ongoing dynamics of the employer-employee relationship under HEERA.

A. PERB Decision No. 1271-H: UCLA and UC Irvine Outside Employment Policies

In PERB Decision No. 1271-H, FUPOA filed an unfair practice charge alleging that UC — specifically at the Los Angeles (UCLA) and Irvine campuses — "violated sections 3571(a), (b) and" other provisions of HEERA by implementing new policies limiting the types of outside employment its police officers could perform without having negotiated with the exclusive representative, FUPOA, prior to implementation. Specifically, UCLA allegedly altered its General Order 15 on July 18, 1997, and UC Irvine altered its General Order 46, both limiting outside employment for police officers. The case was decided against a backdrop of FUPOA and UC being "in the course of negotiating its first agreement." The interim Rights Agreement, initialed on April 3, 1997, provided that UC would not implement changes in General Orders without consulting FUPOA during the negotiations process.

B. PERB Decision No. 2217-H: Sergeant Unit Modification Petition

As documented in Section III of this chapter, PERB Decision No. 2217-H (September 7, 2021) addressed FUPOA's petition to include sergeants in the rank-and-file bargaining unit. FUPOA was represented in this matter by Lackie, Dammeier & McGill, a law firm specializing in law enforcement labor representation. The University was represented by Jones & Mayer. The Board's unanimous decision (Members Mckeag, Dowdin Calvillo, and Huguenin) dismissed FUPOA's petition after finding that UC sergeants exercise independent supervisory judgment on more than a sporadic basis.

C. PERB Decision No. 2755-H: Post-Janus Union Rights

In PERB Decision No. 2755-H, the Board addressed issues arising from the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Council 31 (2018) 585 U.S. ___, 138 S.Ct. 2448, as it related to the Public Employee Communication Chapter (PEDD), codified at Government Code Section 3550 et seq. While this case involved other bargaining units at the UC system, the decision established the legal framework applicable to all HEERA-covered bargaining units, including FUPOA, regarding employer obligations in the post-Janus landscape of union representation rights.

IX. FUPOA Today: Structure, Membership, Affiliations, and 2026 Negotiations

As of the date of this report (February 24, 2026), FUPOA's operational profile is documented as follows:

Membership: FUPOA's own website states that it "represents over 350 police officers and sergeants within the University of California Police Department System. Spread out over 10 campuses across the state of California, our officers work 24/7, 365 days a year to keep the University of California Students, Faculty, and Staff safe." UCnet (the UC Office of the President's human resources portal) states that the Police Officers Unit "currently includes approximately 281 police officers." The UC press room's February 24, 2026, announcement of contract negotiations states that FUPOA "represents 325 sworn non-supervisory police officers across the system." The 2022 contract ratification announcement stated FUPOA's membership as "UC's 260 police officers." These differing numbers may reflect the distinction between sworn non-supervisory officers in the bargaining unit (the UCnet and press room figures) and the total membership including sergeants and associate members (the FUPOA website figure).

Leadership: As of the 2024–2026 period, FUPOA's president is Wade Stern, as documented in the PERB representation petition filings and in FUPOA's public statements regarding the 2024 campus encampment protests. Stern co-authored an opinion article published in Capitol Weekly on May 23, 2024, with the Peace Officers Research Association of California (PORAC) president, addressing campus police response to encampment violence.

Campuses Represented: FUPOA represents officers at all ten UC campus police departments: UC Berkeley, UC Davis, UC Irvine, UC Los Angeles (UCLA), UC Merced, UC Riverside, UC San Diego, UC San Francisco (UCSF), UC Santa Barbara, and UC Santa Cruz. Each campus has a FUPOA Campus Director who serves as the local representative.

Affiliations: FUPOA's public statements and advocacy have been coordinated with the Peace Officers Research Association of California (PORAC), the statewide law enforcement association. The organization is headquartered at 5753 East Santa Ana Canyon Road #G448, Anaheim, CA 92807, and maintains a website at federateduniversitypoa.org. FUPOA's contact information includes a toll-free number (888-724-0172) and email ([email protected]). FUPOA also maintains a Relief Foundation and lists Supported Charities on its website.

2026 Successor Negotiations: The current collective bargaining agreement between UC and FUPOA (effective July 1, 2022, through June 30, 2026) is approaching expiration. UCnet published a public notice in early February 2026 announcing successor bargaining, with two public notice meetings held on February 9, 2026, and February 17, 2026, both via Zoom. On February 24, 2026, UC and FUPOA formally announced the official start of successor contract negotiations. UC Associate Vice President of Systemwide Employee and Labor Relations Missy Matella stated: "UC deeply values the role that our campus police officers play in ensuring safe, inclusive, and secure environments for students, faculty, staff, patients, and visitors. As we begin this important process, we reaffirm our commitment to engaging in productive, respectful negotiations that reflect our shared mission of public service, academic excellence, and institutional stewardship." During the initial bargaining session, FUPOA passed proposals on Holidays, Parking, Hours of Work, Shift Differential, a new article for leave for members of the FUPOA board, a proposal outlining the process for payroll corrections, and a revised Longevity proposal. The University submitted proposals on Arbitration, Grievance, and Non-Discrimination.

X. Significance for POST Regulatory Review

FUPOA's documented history is relevant to POST's regulatory oversight in several specific respects.

First, FUPOA is the institutional voice of rank-and-file UC police officers. Any POST review of systemwide compliance patterns, training standards, use-of-force reporting, or complaint handling processes will necessarily intersect with FUPOA's role as the exclusive representative of the officers subject to those requirements. FUPOA's institutional perspective — as both the officers' advocate and a party to systemwide policy consultations — provides a documented counterpoint to management's representation of compliance status.

Second, FUPOA's litigation history establishes documented patterns of institutional conduct. The FLSA case documented the University's failure to pay federally required overtime to sworn peace officers systemwide. The Jacobs case documented the institutional policy framework governing retired officers' CCW and identification rights. The PERB unfair labor practice cases documented the University's implementation of policy changes affecting officers without negotiating with their exclusive representative. These cases, taken together, establish a documented institutional pattern in which systemwide compliance with legal requirements was achieved through external enforcement — litigation and regulatory adjudication — rather than through proactive institutional compliance.

Third, FUPOA's consultative role in the Gold Book revision process — and the Academic Senate's subsequent opposition to those revisions — documents an institutional dynamic in which the officers' union and the chiefs' council reached policy agreement that was then rejected by the faculty governance body as "inappropriate for a university environment." This documented tension between police labor, police management, and institutional governance is a structural feature of the UC police system that POST may encounter in its regulatory interactions with individual campus departments.