BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 195
Page 1
ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
AB 195 (Roger Hernández)
As Amended April 14, 2011
Majority vote
PUBLIC EMPLOYEES 4-1
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Furutani, Allen, Ma, | | |
| |Wieckowski | | |
| | | | |
|-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
|Nays:|Mansoor | | |
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY : Provides a comprehensive list of actions that a public
agency employer is prohibited from engaging in. Specifically,
this bill :
1)Prohibits a public agency employer from doing any of the
following:
a) Impose, or threaten to impose, reprisals on employees who
exercise their rights under the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act
(MMBA);
b) Deny to employee organizations rights guaranteed to them
under the MMBA;
c) Refuse or fail to meet and negotiate in good faith with
an exclusive representative;
d) Knowingly provide an employee organization with
inaccurate information;
e) Dominate or interfere with the formation or
administration of an employee organization; and,
f) Refuse to participate in good faith in impasse
procedures, as specified.
2)Declares it is the intent of the Legislature that the addition
of this section to the Government Code is technical and
clarifying of existing law.
AB 195
Page 2
EXISTING LAW :
1)As established by the MMBA, prohibits local public agencies and
employee organizations from interfering with, intimidating,
restraining, coercing or discriminating against public
employees because they have chosen to join, or not join, an
employee organization.
2)As established under the Educational Employment Relations Act
(EERA), also known as the Rodda Act, prohibits a public school
employer from doing any of the following:
a) Impose, or threaten to impose, reprisals on employees who
exercise their rights under the EERA;
b) Deny to employee organizations rights guaranteed to them
under the EERA;
c) Refuse or fail to meet and negotiate in good faith with
an exclusive representative;
d) Knowingly providing an exclusive representative with
inaccurate information, whether or not in response to a
request for information, regarding the financial resources
of the public school employer;
e) Dominate or interfere with the formation or
administration of an employee organization; and,
f) Refuse to participate in good faith in impasse
procedures, as specified.
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown
COMMENTS : According to the author, "The MMBA states that public
agencies may not interfere, intimidate, restrain, coerce or
discriminate against employees because of their exercise of
protected rights. This sweeping provision has been interpreted
by the Courts, and now by the Public Employment Relations Board,
in a manner that is substantially similar to the clearly outlined
protections in the EERA. The substantive difference between the
courts' interpretation of the MMBA and the EERA is the
prohibition in the latter against providing inaccurate
AB 195
Page 3
information. AB 195 would eliminate any confusion related to
unfair labor practices by setting for a list of unfair practices
that are prohibited under the MMBA. These unfair practices
mirror those prohibited under the EERA."
Supporters state, "AB 195 will clarify what specific acts against
an employee and an employee organization constitute a violation
of the law. This will also include failing to negotiate in good
faith, knowingly providing false information to the union,
interfering with a union, or refusing to participate in impasse
proceedings. The protections for concerted activity are
essential to collective bargaining rights. Greater clarity
benefits management and workers in complying with the law."
According to opponents, "With the enactment of SB 739 (Solis),
Chapter 901, Statutes of 2000, a transfer of the administration
of the MMBA was made to the Public Employment Relations Board
(PERB). Accordingly, PERB adopted regulations for public
agencies setting forth unfair labor practices for both employers
and employee organizations. These regulations are substantially
similar to the unfair labor practice definitions under the EERA.
The provisions in AB 195 are unnecessary and duplicative and we
are unaware of any reason as to why existing regulations must be
codified in statute."
Opponents conclude, "AB 195 would additionally expand upon
existing regulations by prohibiting public agencies from
providing employee organizations with 'inaccurate information'.
This differs from current unfair labor practice language under
the EERA, which specifies 'inaccurate information' as pertaining
to financial resources. Prohibiting public agencies from
providing any unspecified inaccurate information to employee
organizations is considerably broader than prohibitions place on
other public employers and leaves those agencies under the MMBA
open to a bevy of unfair labor practice charges and with the
burden of proving that any information provided to the employee
organizations was accurate."
Analysis Prepared by : Karon Green / P.E., R. & S.S. / (916)
319-3957
FN:
0000281
AB 195
Page 4