BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 501
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 13, 2011
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Felipe Fuentes, Chair
AB 501 (Campos) - As Amended: April 6, 2011
Policy Committee: Public Employees,
Retirement and Social Security Vote: 4-2
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
Yes Reimbursable: Yes
SUMMARY
This bill clarifies that all public school employees have the
right to union representation. Specifically, this bill:
1) Amends the definition of "exclusive representative" to
mean the employee organization recognized or certified as
the exclusive negotiating representative for all public
school employees rather than just certificated or classified
employees.
2) Expands the definition of "public school employer" or
"employer' to include a joint powers agency (JPA) that is
comprised solely of school agencies, as specified.
FISCAL EFFECT
1) Annual state mandate reimbursement costs of $500,000 to $1
million, depending on how many JPAs engage in collective
bargaining under the bill. State payments count against the
Proposition 98 guarantee.
2) Potential increased costs to school districts for wages and
benefit increases resulting from collective bargaining
agreements between JPAs and their employees. These costs
would not be reimbursable.
By extending collective bargaining requirements to JPAs under
EERA, this bill would increase state costs through the mandate
reimbursement process. According to the Department of
Education, there are 70 education-related JPAs in the state,
primarily for purposes of transportation and vocational
AB 501
Page 2
education services. Assuming all of these JPAs engaged in
collective bargaining, costs of this bill could reach
approximately $1.5 million. Many JPA employee groups, however,
are likely to forego EERA provisions given the nature of the
agreements reached with employers. Assuming half of all JPAs
utilized EERA, statewide costs would be approximately $750,000
COMMENTS
1) Rationale . According to the author, In Castaic Union
School District v. CSEA (2010), the Public Employment
Relations Board (PERB) drastically narrowed the scope of
those public school employees covered by collective
bargaining. Proponents contend current JPAs in the
education field employ individuals to perform tasks
substantially similar to those performed by employees in
regular public schools. They assert that there is no reason
why JPA employees should be treated differently than school
district employees with regard to collective bargaining
rights.
2) Background . Under current law, two or more entities
meeting specified conditions can enter into a joint
agreement which allows them to exercise powers common to the
contracting parties. Currently there are about 70 of these
JPAs operating in school districts across California,
primarily providing services in areas of home-to-school
transportation and vocational education to combinations of
smaller districts. School districts are required to engage
in collective bargaining with their employees under current
law. JPAs exercised these collective bargaining rights
until 1990 when a Public Employee's Relations Board held
that JPAs are not specifically covered under the collective
bargaining statutes. Thus, while JPA employees are covered
by less rigorous "meet and confer" provisions of current
law, they are not guaranteed the right to collective
bargaining.
3) Previous legislation. AB 1463 (Eng) of 2007 would have
expanded the definition of public school employer or
employer to include certain joint powers agencies. This
bill was held in the Senate Appropriations Committee. This
bill is also similar to AB 91 (Hertzberg) of 1999 that was
vetoed by the Governor.
AB 501
Page 3
Analysis Prepared by : Roger Dunstan / APPR. / (916) 319-2081