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