BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT & RETIREMENT BILL NO: AB 195
Gloria Negrete McLeod, Chair Hearing date: June 27, 2011
AB 195 (Roger Hernández) as amended 6/06/11
FISCAL: NO
LOCAL PUBLIC AGENCY EMPLOYERS: PROHIBITED ACTIVITIES
HISTORY :
Sponsor: American Federation of State, County and
Municipal Employees (AFSCME), AFL-CIO
Prior legislation: SB 931 (Vargas), 2011
Currently on the Assembly Floor
ASSEMBLY VOTES :
PER & SS 4-1 4/13/11
Assembly Floor 51-23 5/05/11
SUMMARY :
This bill would declare the intent of the Legislature to
provide technical and clarifying changes to existing law by
providing a list of actions that a public agency employer is
prohibited from engaging in regarding the exercise of
guaranteed public employee rights.
BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS :
1)Existing law :
a) establishes the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act (MMBA) which
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;
b) grants public employees the right to form, join, and
Michael Bolden
Date: 6/15/11 Page 1
participate in the activities of employee organizations
of their own choosing for the purpose of representation
on all matters of employer-employee relations;
c) grants public employees the right to refuse to join
or participate in the activities of employee
organizations and to represent themselves individually
in their employment relations with the public agency;
d) establishes the Educational Employment Relations Act
(EERA) which specifically prohibits a public school
employer from doing any of the following:
i) imposing, or threatening to impose, reprisals on
employees who exercise their rights under the EERA;
ii) denying employee organizations' rights guaranteed
to them under the EERA;
iii) refusing or failing to meet and negotiate in good
faith with an exclusive representative;
iv) 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;
v) dominating or interfering with the formation or
administration of an employee organization, and
vi) refusing to participate in good faith in impasse
procedures, as specified.
2)This bill :
a) would amend the MMBA to contain certain prohibitions
that are similar to provisions under the EERA;
b) prohibits a public agency employer subject to the
MMBA from doing any of the following:
i) imposing or threatening to impose reprisals on
employees; discriminating or threatening to
Michael Bolden
Date: 6/15/11 Page 2
discriminate against employees, or interfering with,
restraining, or coercing public employees because of
their exercise of rights under the MMBA;
ii) denying employee organizations' rights guaranteed
to them under the MMBA;
iii) refusing or failing to meet and negotiate in good
faith with an exclusive representative;
iv) knowingly providing an employee organization with
inaccurate information, as specified;
v) dominating or interfering with the formation or
administration of an employee organization;
contributing financial or other support to any
employee organization, or encouraging employees to
join any organization in preference to another, and
vi) refusing to participate in good faith in impasse
procedures, as specified.
c) declares the intent of the Legislature that the
addition of this section to the Government Code is
technical and clarifying of existing law.
FISCAL:
According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee, the costs
of this bill are unknown.
COMMENTS :
1)Arguments in Support
According to the author:
The MMBA prohibits certain activities by a public agency
employer against employees because of their exercise of
protected rights. "However, the MMBA does not provide a
comprehensive list of unfair practices that a public
Michael Bolden
Date: 6/15/11 Page 3
agency employer is enjoined from committing, Ýwhich] may
cause confusion on the part of the public agency Ýas to]
whether its actions create a risk of liability, Ýand]
may leave employees uncertain of their rights under the
MMBA."
"This bill sets forth a list of unfair practices that
are prohibited under the MMBA Ýand] mirror those
prohibited under the EERA."
According to the sponsor:
"Current law has been interpreted by the courts and the
Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) in a manner
that is substantially similar to the protections in the
EERA. However, the MMBA does not contain a similar list
of prohibitions by public employer agencies regarding
unfair practices against public employees and employee
organizations. This bill would clarify which acts by a
public agency employer that constitute unlawful and
unfair practices prohibited under the MMBA, and would
make existing policy more transparent by identifying a
clear list of unfair practices in the MMBA."
2)Arguments in Opposition
According to the California State Association of Counties
(CSAC):
"ÝPursuant to SB 739 of 2000], the PERB adopted
regulations for public agencies defining unfair labor
practices for both employers and employee organizations.
These regulations are substantially similar to the
unfair labor practice definitions under the EERA. ÝThis
bill] expands those protections to applicants for
employment or reemployment. Counties do not seek the
right to discriminate and believes that applicants for
employment have protections against discrimination under
the Fair Employment and Housing Act, but objects to
conferring rights on applicants for employment. This
goes beyond current law and is not part of the MMBA or
PERB's regulation of the relationship between public
employers and represented employees."
Michael Bolden
Date: 6/15/11 Page 4
Similar to CSAC's concerns, other opponents contend that
this bill expands existing regulations by prohibiting
public agencies from knowingly providing employee
organizations with 'inaccurate information' which
specifically pertains to financial resources under the
EERA, and that this bill would increase PERB's duties and
costs related to MMBA administration.
3) SUPPORT :
American Federation of State, County and Municipal
Employees (AFSCME), AFL-CIO Sponsor
Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs (ALADS)
California Conference Board of the Amalgamated Transit
Union (ATU)
California Conference of Machinists
California Labor Federation (CLF)
California State Employees Association (CSEA)
California Teamsters Public Affairs Council
Glendale City Employees Association (GCEA)
Los Angeles Probation Officers Union, AFSCME, Local 685
Orange County Professional Firefighters' Association, IAFF,
Local 3631
Organization of SMUD Employees (OSE)
Professional and Technical Engineers, Local 21
Riverside Sheriffs' Association
San Bernardino Public Employees Association (SBPEA)
San Luis Obispo County Employees Association (SLOCEA)
Santa Rosa City Employees Association (SRCEA)
4) OPPOSITION :
Association of California Water Agencies (ACWA)
California Special Districts Association (CSDA)
California State Association of Counties (CSAC)
Desert Water Agency (DWA), Oppose unless amended
East Valley Water District (EVWD), Oppose unless amended
El Dorado Irrigation District (EID), Oppose unless amended
League of California Cities (LCC)
Regional Council of Rural Counties (RCRC)
Michael Bolden
Date: 6/15/11 Page 5
#####
Michael Bolden
Date: 6/15/11 Page 6