BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 616
Page 1
ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
AB 616 (Bocanegra)
As Amended April 25, 2013
Majority vote
PUBLIC EMPLOYEES 5-2 APPROPRIATIONS 12-5
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Bonta, Jones-Sawyer, |Ayes:|Gatto, Bocanegra, |
| |Mullin, Rendon, | |Bradford, |
| |Wieckowski | |Ian Calderon, Campos, |
| | | |Eggman, Gomez, Hall, |
| | | |Ammiano, Pan, Quirk, |
| | | |Weber |
| | | | |
|-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
|Nays:|Allen, Harkey |Nays:|Harkey, Bigelow, |
| | | |Donnelly, Linder, Wagner |
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY : Makes changes to the Meyers-Milas-Brown Act (MMBA)
with respect to impasse procedures and factfinding.
Specifically, this bill :
1)Extends the period of time that an employee organization has
to request fact finding in disputes not submitted to mediation
from 30 days to 60 days following the date either party
provided the other with written notice of a declaration of
impasse.
2)Provides that if either party disputes that a genuine impasse
has been reached, it may submit that dispute to the Public
Employment Relations Board (PERB) for resolution. If PERB
determines that a genuine impasse exists, the parties'
differences are subject to the remainder of the fact finding
procedures of the MMBA.
3)Defines "impasse" for purposes of these provisions to mean
that the parties to a dispute over a matter within the scope
of collective bargaining have reached a point that future
meetings to resolve the issue would be futile.
4)Allows the employee relations commissions for the County and
City of Los Angeles to maintain and amend existing impasse
AB 616
Page 2
rules and regulations as they deem necessary consistent with
the policies contained in the MMBA.
EXISTING LAW , as established by the MMBA:
1)Contains various provisions intended to promote full
communication between public employers and their employees by
providing a reasonable method of resolving disputes regarding
wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment
between public employers and public employee organizations.
2)Provides that if, after a reasonable amount of time,
representatives of the public agency and the employee
organization fail to reach agreement, the two parties may
mutually agree on the appointment of a mediator and equally
share the cost.
3)Authorizes an employee organization to request that the
parties' differences be submitted to a factfinding panel not
sooner than 30 days, but not more than 45 days, following the
appointment of a mediator or entering into a mediation
process. If the dispute was not submitted to mediation, an
employee organization may request that the parties'
differences be submitted to a factfinding panel not later than
30 days following the date either party provided the other
with written notice of a declaration of impasse.
4)Allows an employer to implement their last, best and final
offer once any applicable mediation and fact-finding
procedures have been exhausted and, despite the implementation
of the best and final offer, allows a recognized employee
organization the right each year to meet and confer.
5)Delegates jurisdiction over the employer-employee relationship
to PERB and charges PERB with resolving disputes and enforcing
the statutory duties and rights of local public agency
employers and employee organizations.
FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Assembly Appropriations
Committee, based on the staffing that PERB estimated was
necessary to administer the bill, the fiscal impact of
administering the provisions of this bill is approximately
$250,000.
AB 616
Page 3
Though the bill is not keyed a local mandate, there could be
state mandated reimbursement of local costs for the impasse
decisions. The amount would depend on the number of requests
for impasse. Reimbursable costs could be in the millions of
dollars. The Commission on State Mandates has approved a test
claim for any local government subject to the jurisdiction of
PERB that incurs increased costs as a result of a mandate,
meaning their costs are eligible for reimbursement. There are
several thousand local governments, many with dozens of
bargaining units that would be subject to the bill.
COMMENTS : According to the author, "?when a public employer and
a public employee organization reach an impasse in collective
bargaining and the dispute has not been submitted to voluntary
mediation, the employee organization may request that the
parties' differences be submitted to a factfinding panel not
later than 30 days following the date that either party provided
the other with a written notice of a declaration of impasse.
PERB has interpreted this provision, in its regulations and its
administrative rulings, to require the employee organization to
make this request within 30 days of a declaration of impasse,
without regard to whether the employer and union have in fact
reached a genuine impasse in the negotiations. This loophole
could allow a public employer to evade its duty to bargain in
good faith by declaring impasse prematurely or in bad faith."
Opponents, including California State Association of Counties,
argue extending the time from 30 to 60 days for the submission
of differences to a fact-finding panel will do nothing more than
lengthen the negotiating period to the benefit of the party
interested in maintaining the status quo. They also believe
local rules adequately define impasse and the procedures that
follow.
AB 1606 (Perea), Chapter 314, Statutes of 2012, authorized an
employee organization to request that the parties' differences
be submitted to a fact-finding panel not sooner than 30 days,
but not more than 45 days, following the appointment of a
mediator or entering into a mediation process. If the dispute
was not submitted to mediation, an employee organization may
request that the parties' differences be submitted to a
factfinding panel not later than 30 days following the date
either party provided the other with written notice of a
declaration of impasse.
AB 616
Page 4
AB 646 (Atkins), Chapter 680, Statutes of 2011, allowed local
public employee organizations to request factfinding if a
mediator is unable to reach a settlement within 30 days of
appointment, defines certain responsibilities of the factfinding
panel and interested parties, and made specified exemptions from
these provisions.
AB 195 (Hernández), Chapter 271, Statutes of 2011, specified
that a public agency is prohibited from, among other things,
imposing reprisals on or discriminating against employees
because of their exercise of rights guaranteed by the act, and
specified that knowingly providing a recognized employee
organization with inaccurate information regarding the financial
resources of the public employer constituted a refusal or
failure to meet and negotiate in good faith. The bill also
declared that the provisions were intended to be technical and
clarify of existing law.
AB 1156 (Núñez), Chapter 215, Statutes of 2003, clarified the
role of PERB, relative to its jurisdiction in resolving disputes
and enforcing the statutory duties and rights of local public
agency employers and employees under the MMBA, to include the
power to order elections, conduct any election it orders and
adopt rules to apply in areas where a public agency has no rule.
The bill also empowered employees of a local public agency and
employee organization to challenge a rule or regulation of a
public agency in violation of MMBA.
AB 1281 (Cedillo), Chapter 790, Statutes of 2001, required local
agencies to recognize an employee organization as the exclusive
representative of the employees in an appropriate unit based
upon a signed petition, authorization cards, or union membership
cards showing that a majority of the employees desire such
recognition.
SB 739 (Solis), Chapter 901, Statutes of 2000, revised MMBA to
transfer jurisdiction for the resolution of unfair labor
practice charges and representation disputes to PERB.
Analysis Prepared by : Karon Green / P.E., R. & S.S. / (916)
319-3957
AB 616
Page 5
FN: 0000770