BILL ANALYSIS SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE Senator Ellen M. Corbett, Chair 2009-2010 Regular Session AB 2331 (Skinner) As Amended May 28, 2010 Hearing Date: June 22, 2010 Fiscal: No Urgency: No KB:jd SUBJECT Firefighters Procedural Bill of Rights Act DESCRIPTION This bill, sponsored by the California Professional Firefighters, would provide that if provisions of the Firefighters Procedural Bill of Rights Act pertaining to administrative appeals are in conflict with grievance arbitration provisions of a memorandum of understanding in effect on and or after January 1, 2008, the memorandum of understanding shall be controlling without further legislative action. BACKGROUND In 2007, the Legislature enacted AB 220 (Bass, Chapter 591, Statutes of 2007) which established the Firefighters Procedural Bill of Rights Act (Act). In general, the Act specified the procedures to be followed whenever a firefighter is subject to investigation and interrogation for alleged misconduct which may result in punitive action, such as dismissal, demotion, suspension, salary reduction, written reprimand, transfer, or even temporary reassignment. Pursuant to the Act, a firefighter may bring suit in superior court for alleged violations of the act, and obtain appropriate injunctive or other extraordinary relief to remedy the violation and to prevent future violations. (Gov. Code Sec. 3260.) In addition, punitive action or denial of promotion on grounds other than merit may not be undertaken by any employing department or licensing or certifying agency against any firefighter who has successfully completed the probationary period without providing the firefighter with an (more) AB 2331 (Skinner) Page 2 of ? opportunity for administrative appeal. (Gov. Code Sec. 3254.) The Act further provides that an administrative appeal instituted by a firefighter under the Act shall be conducted in conformance with rules and procedures adopted by the employing department or licensing or certifying agency that are in accordance with the Administrative Procedures Act. (Gov. Code Sec. 3254.5.) This bill seeks to correct apparent conflicts between the provisions of the Act pertaining to administrative appeals and existing memorandums of understanding. CHANGES TO EXISTING LAW Existing law , the Firefighters Procedural Bill of Rights Act (Act), provides a set of rights and procedural protections to specified firefighters. The act requires an administrative appeal instituted by a firefighter under the act to be conducted in conformance with rules and procedures adopted by the employing department or licensing or certifying agency that are in accordance with specified provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act. (Gov. Code Sec. 3254.5.) This bill would specify that if the above-described provision is in conflict with grievance arbitration provisions of a memorandum of understanding in effect on and or after January 1, 2008, the memorandum of understanding shall be controlling without further legislative action. COMMENT 1. Stated need for the bill In support of this bill, the sponsor states: Now that the Act has been in effect for a few years, firefighter organizations and their employers are realizing that the current application of the law may not clearly provide for an alternative, collectively-bargained appeals procedure. With that, it's evident that the provisions of the Act governing the administrative appeals process are in need of clarification - specifically, with respect to those jurisdictions that have effectively mitigated past appeals through a locally-adopted grievance arbitration procedure. Rather than strapping these jurisdictions with the hefty cost of revamping their appeals process to conform with the Office AB 2331 (Skinner) Page 3 of ? of Administrative Law rules under the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) - costs that in many cases would be prohibitive given the current economic climate - there is a need to enable jurisdictions to utilize their existing, effective grievance arbitration appeals process as an acceptable alternative to the APA process. 2. Conflicts between Act and Memorandums of Understanding In enacting AB 220, the Legislature intended to establish procedures that would protect the due process rights of firefighters in administrative appeals. However, as noted by the sponsor, at the time AB 220 went into effect, many firefighter organizations already had collectively bargained for alternative grievance arbitration procedures. As currently written, the Act does not clearly provide for such an alternative established in a memorandum of understanding (MOU). This bill would expressly provide that if the provisions of the Act are in conflict with the grievance arbitration provisions of an MOU in effect on or after January 1, 2008, then the MOU shall be controlling. Committee staff notes that the Act was substantially based on the Public Safety Officers Procedural Bill of Rights Act (POBOR), which does not contain a similar requirement that administrative appeals be subject to the APA. Instead, the POBOR provides that an administrative appeal under the POBOR shall be conducted with rules and procedures adopted by the local public agency. Thus, this bill would not create a discrepancy in the administrative appeals rights afforded to public safety officers and firefighters in each respective act. While a number of organizations, including the California State Association of Counties and League of Cities, were opposed to AB 220 and the original Act, it does not appear that this bill has any opposition. However, the League of Cities has expressed concerns that the term "grievance arbitration" is too narrow as some cities have negotiated procedures in place that are not referred to as such. This committee may wish to inquire of the author whether the author's intent to is limit the application of this bill to "grievance arbitration" or all negotiated disciplinary or appeals processes so as to ensure that the proper terminology is used. However, any clarifications should not be so broad as to undermine the purpose of the POBOR. AB 2331 (Skinner) Page 4 of ? The League of Cities would like further clarification on whether an MOU is in "effect" if it has already expired. Generally, MOUs remain in effect even after they have expired until a new MOU is entered into. (Gov. Code Sec. 3517.8.) Thus, an expired MOU would be controlling and in effect for the purposes of this bill until a new MOU is agreed upon. Support : None Known Opposition : None Known HISTORY Source : California Professional Firefighters Related Pending Legislation : None Known Prior Legislation : See Background. Prior Vote : Not relevant. This bill was substantively amended to address a different subject matter. **************