BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    Ó



                                                                  AB 501
                                                                  Page  1


          ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
          AB 501 (Campos)
          As Amended April 6, 2011
          Majority vote

           PUBLIC EMPLOYEES    4-2         APPROPRIATIONS      12-5        
           
           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
          |Ayes:|Furutani, Allen, Ma,      |Ayes:|Fuentes, Blumenfield,     |
          |     |Wieckowski                |     |Bradford, Charles         |
          |     |                          |     |Calderon, Campos, Davis,  |
          |     |                          |     |Gatto, Hall, Hill, Lara,  |
          |     |                          |     |Mitchell, Solorio         |
          |     |                          |     |                          |
          |-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
          |Nays:|Mansoor, Harkey           |Nays:|Harkey, Donnelly,         |
          |     |                          |     |Nielsen, Norby, Wagner    |
          |     |                          |     |                          |
           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
           SUMMARY  :   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 specified auxiliary organizations 
            established by the California Community Colleges and joint 
            powers agencies that are comprised solely of school agencies, 
            as specified.

           EXISTING LAW  :

          1)Provides for the Educational Employment Relations Act (EERA) 
            which was approved by the Legislature and signed by Governor 
            Jerry Brown in 1975.  In addition to a variety of other 
            provisions, EERA provides for a process by which employees of 
            the public schools and the community colleges may select an 
            exclusive representative to represent them as part of the 
            bargaining unit within their district.  This representative 
            may then negotiate the terms and conditions of employment with 








                                                                  AB 501
                                                                  Page  2


            the governing board, with the results of these negotiations 
            subject to ratification by the employees.

          2)Defines the term "exclusive representative" for purpose of the 
            EERA as the employee organization recognized or certified as 
            the exclusive negotiating representative of certificated or 
            classified employees in an appropriate unit of a public school 
            employer.

          3)Defines the term "public school employer" for the purpose of 
            negotiations on collective bargaining agreements covering 
            public school employees, as the governing board of a school 
            district, a school district, a county board of education, a 
            county superintendent of schools, or certain charter schools.

          4)Provides that, if authorized by their legislative or other 
            governing bodies, two or more public agencies meeting 
            specified conditions can enter into a joint agreement, 
            becoming joint powers agencies (JPA), which allows them to 
            exercise powers common to the contracting parties.  "Public 
            agency" includes, but is not limited to, the federal 
            government or any federal department or agency, this state, 
            another state or any other state department or agency, a 
            county, county board of education, county superintendent of 
            schools, city, public corporation, public district, or 
            regional transportation commission of this or another state. 

           FISCAL EFFECT  :   According to the Assembly Appropriations 
          Committee:

          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, 








                                                                  AB 501
                                                                  Page  3


          primarily for purposes of transportation and vocational 
          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  :   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 the EERA, and afforded all of the rights to 
          potential union representation under that statute.

          "PERB ruled that noon-time duty aides were ineligible to receive 
          representation rights because they are neither certificated nor 
          classified public school employees."

          Supporters state, "In another decision, PERB ruled that the San 
          Jose/Evergreen Community College District was not a 'joint 
          employer' with a Joint Powers Authority.  In San Jose/Evergreen, 
          the employees had been considered public school employees until 
          the JPA was created.  And even though they continued to perform 
          exactly the same work (teaching community college students), 
          they were now classified as non-school employees.  This decision 
          allowed districts to circumvent the EERA by entering into 
          carefully crafted JPAs with each other to deny their employees 
          union representation."

          The author concludes, "AB 501 would clarify existing law to 
          afford representational rights to all public school and 
          community college employees."

          Opponents state, "JPAs are formed primarily for efficiency 
          reasons as providing certain services on a regional basis leads 
          to better economies of scale.  AB 501 will lead to higher 
          administrative costs that will erase some of those 
          efficiencies."  

          This bill is similar to AB 1463 (Eng) of 2007 which 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.









                                                                  AB 501
                                                                  Page  4


          This bill is also similar to AB 91 (Hertzberg) of 1999 that was 
          vetoed by the Governor.  In his veto message, the Governor 
          stated, "The costs incurred by public school employers for 
          collective bargaining are currently reimbursable by the State.  
          The need to extend collective bargaining in school-related joint 
          powers agencies has not been demonstrated.  However, for school 
          districts and county offices of education choosing to form joint 
          powers agencies, this bill may result in situations where the 
          State is required to backfill Public Employees' Retirement 
          System contributions for employees whose employment is 
          transferred to joint powers agencies.  Based on this, I am 
          unable to support this measure."

           
          Analysis Prepared by  :    Karon Green / P.E., R. & S.S. / (916) 
          319-3957 


                                                                FN: 0000912