BILL ANALYSIS
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
Senator Ellen M. Corbett, Chair
2007-2008 Regular Session
AB 863 A
Assemblymember Davis B
As Introduced
Hearing Date: June 19, 2007 8
ADM:rm 6
3
SUBJECT
Los Angeles County Superior Court Employees
DESCRIPTION
This bill would require the Los Angeles County Superior
Court (LACSC) to pay each employee in certain, specified
bargaining units represented by the American Federation of
State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) an amount
equivalent to the additional amount the employee would have
received if the reclassification raise the employee
received on October 1, 2005, were retroactive to August 1,
2005.
BACKGROUND
In 2000, SB 2140 (Burton, Chapter 1010) established the
Trial Court Employment Protection and Governance Act (Act),
which, among other things, created a civil-service like
employment system for many trial court employees, including
a mutual obligation for the trial courts and recognized
employee organizations to meet and confer in good faith.
The legislation also established a trial court's authority
to establish job classifications and salary ranges as it
deems necessary.
The 2005-06 state budget included augmentations to the
Trial Court Trust Fund of $3.5 million for pay parity in
the LACSC. The majority of the collective bargaining units
reached agreement on job classifications and pay effective
August 1, 2005. Negotiations between the LACSC and certain
employee groups represented by AFSCME were not completed
(more)
AB 863 (Davis)
Page 2
until October 1, 2005, and those employees' pay adjustments
did not begin until that time. AFSCME seeks in this bill
to make those October 1, 2005 pay adjustments retroactive
to August 1, 2005.
CHANGES TO EXISTING LAW
Existing law defines the phrase "trial court employee," for
purposes of the Act, to mean a person paid from the trial
court's budget and subject to the trial court's right to
control the manner and means of his or her work because of
the trial court's authority to hire, supervise, discipline,
and terminate employment. (Government Code (GC) Section
71601.)
Existing law requires, among other things, that trial
courts and recognized employee organizations have a mutual
obligation to meet and confer in good faith, as specified,
in order to, among other things, endeavor to reach
agreement on matters within the scope of representation.
(GC Section 17601.)
Existing law provides that each trial court may establish
such job classifications and may appoint such trial court
officers, deputies, assistants, and employees as are deemed
necessary for the performance of the duties and the
exercise of the powers conferred by law upon the trial
courts. (GC Section 71620.)
Existing law provides that each trial court may establish a
salary range for each of its employee classifications, and
considerations shall include, but are not limited to, local
market conditions and other local compensation-related
issues such as difficulty of recruitment or retention. (GC
Section 71623.)
This bill would require the LACSC to pay each employee in a
bargaining unit represented by any of the following
employee organizations an amount equivalent to the
additional amount the employee would have received if the
reclassification raise the employee received on October 1,
2005, were retroactive to August 1, 2005:
(a)AFSCME Local 276, Mediators and Evaluators.
(b)AFSCME Local 575, the Los Angeles County Superior Court
AB 863 (Davis)
Page 3
(LACSC) Clerks Association.
(c)AFSCME Local 910, the LACSC Legal Professional Unit.
(d)AFSCME Local 3271, the LACSC Professional Employees.
(e)AFSCME Local 3302, the LACSC Clerical.
COMMENT
1. Stated need for the bill
The sponsor, AFSCME, writes:
Existing law provides that each trial court may
establish a salary range for each of its employee
classifications, and considerations shall include, but
are not limited to, local market conditions and other
local compensation-related issues such as difficulty
of recruitment or retention.
The Legislature authorized a Classification and
Compensation study, whereby the results were
implemented in 2005. Additionally, funds were
authorized by the Legislature for implementation
August 1, 2005.
These funds have been appropriated by the Legislature
to the Trial Court [Trust] Fund for the purpose of
reclassification of AFSCME Local 276, Local 575, Local
910, Local 3271, and Local 3302.
However, the [LACSC] implemented the new
classification and compensation levels on October 1,
2005, thereby denying the affected workers two months
of pay at the appropriate rate.
AFSCME also writes that the impetus for the
Classification and Compensation study was court
unification [superior and municipal courts unification,
Proposition 220, 1998], which resulted in workers
throughout the court system performing the same jobs in
different classifications with different pay rates. As
part of the unification process, AFSCME asserts that the
Legislature intended that pay parity be achieved between
superior and municipal court employees doing the same
job.
AB 863 (Davis)
Page 4
2. Related budget bill language
In both the 2005-06 and current budget bills, this issue
has been addressed. The current budget conference
committee has approved the following bill language:
0250-101-0932
Provision XX.
From funds previously provided by the Legislature in
the 2004-05 budget to address court employee pay
parity due to unification of the municipal and
superior courts, the Judicial Council shall allocate
funds to the Los Angeles Superior Court and the court
shall pay to each employee the amount the employee
would have received if the reclassification raise the
employee received on October 1, 2005, had been
retroactive to August 1, 2005. The Administrative
Office of the Courts [AOC] shall confirm with the Los
Angeles Superior Court the names of the affected
employees and the amount of funding necessary to
implement this provision.
Very similar language was contained in the 2005-06 Budget
bill. The AOC reports that it is holding the funds
(approximately $230,000) appropriated in the 2005 budget
and will continue to do so until LACSC indicates that it
will disburse the funds according to the budget bill
language and/or AB 863.
BECAUSE THIS RETROACTIVE PAY ISSUE HAS BEEN OUTSTANDING
FOR TWO YEARS AND INVOLVES A MINIMAL AMOUNT OF MONIES,
SHOULD NOT THE LACSC COMMIT TO DISBURSING THE FUNDS AS IT
HAS ALREADY BEEN DIRECTED TO DO?
SHOULD THE BILL BE AMENDED TO PROVIDE A LEGISLATIVE
DECLARATION URGING THE LACSC TO ACT IN A RESPONSIBLE
MANNER AND DISBURSE THE FUNDS THE JC IS HOLDING AS
DIRECTED?
3. Prior virtually identical legislation
Senate Bill 1696 (Dunn of 2006), which was identical to
AB 863, was vetoed. The governor's veto message reads:
AB 863 (Davis)
Page 5
This bill would circumvent the collective bargaining
process by requiring retroactive pay increases for
employees of the Los Angeles County Superior Court,
which were not agreed to during negotiations.
Furthermore, signing this bill would undermine the
collective bargaining process by encouraging
bargaining units to come to the Legislature to
determine the outcome rather than follow the process
set forth in law requiring negotiation between the
parties locally.
4. Opponents' arguments
Opponent California Judges Association (CJA) writes that
"CJA expresses no opinion on the merits of retroactive
pay for individuals affected by the bill, nor on whether
sufficient funds have been set aside in the past to make
retroactive payments. Rather, [CJA has] a long-standing
policy against resolving collective bargaining disputes
by statute. CJA generally opposes interference with
local labor negotiations."
Opponent LACSC also writes that AB 863 would undermine
the collective bargaining process "because it represents
an effort to obtain through legislation that which AFSCME
was unable to obtain through good faith negotiations."
Additionally, opponent LACSC writes:
Prior to implementing the Study recommendations, the
[LACSC] engaged in good faith labor negations with
both AFSCME and SEIU (Service Employees International
Union) about the effect of the Study. The court and
SEIU reached agreement after four bargaining sessions.
After reaching agreement with SEIU, the court
implemented salary increases for SEIU bargaining unit
members on August 1, 2005.
The court and AFSCME held 34 bargaining sessions but
were unable to reach agreement on the issues.
Consequently, the court implemented its last, best and
final offer effective October 1, 2005. AFSCME sought
to have the court implement the offer retroactively to
August 1, 2005, but, consistent with long established
AB 863 (Davis)
Page 6
practice, the court declined to grant retroactive pay
increases. By sponsoring AB 863, AFSCME seeks to
change the outcome of the parties' good faith
negotiations and have the Legislature provide AFSCME
bargaining unit members something AFSCME was unable to
obtain through collective bargaining.
AFSCME responds that, because it represents many more
bargaining units than SEIU, it was unable to complete
contract negotiations in the timeframe that SEIU was.
And, in any event, the LACSC implemented its final offer
of its own volition and chose not to make it retroactive
to August 1, 2005.
Support: Orange County Employees Assoc.
Opposition: CA Judges Assoc.; Los Angeles County Superior
Court
HISTORY
Source: American Federation of State, County and
Municipal Employees
Related Pending Legislation: None Known
Prior Legislation: SB 1696 (Dunn of 2006), which was
virtually identical to this bill, was vetoed.
(See Comment 2 for details.)
Prior Vote: Assembly Public Employees, Retirement &
Social Security
Committee (Ayes 4, Noes 1)
Assembly Appropriations Committee (Ayes 12, Noes
5)
Assembly Floor (Ayes 42, Noes 31)
**************
AB 863 (Davis)
Page 7