BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    �



                                                                  AB 872
                                                                  Page  1

          Date of Hearing:   May 8, 2013

                        ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
                                  Mike Gatto, Chair

                   AB 872 (Dickinson) - As Amended:  April 8, 2013 

          Policy Committee:                              PERSSVote:5-1

          Urgency:     No                   State Mandated Local Program:  
          No     Reimbursable:              

           SUMMARY  

          This bill enacts the Safety Accountability Fairness and  
          Efficiency Act for Public Employees (S.A.F.E. Act for Public  
          Employees) which provides various rights and protections to  
          non-excluded state civil service employees, as specified, and  
          requires that any adverse action taken against a state employee  
          be initiated and the investigation completed within one year of  
          discovery of the cause for discipline.  
            
           FISCAL EFFECT  

          Significant costs, General Fund and special funds, in the range  
          of $500,000 annually statewide, for employers to deal with  
          shortened timeframes for adverse actions.  These costs would  
          diminish after the existing backlog is reduced. 

           COMMENTS

          1)Purpose  .  According to the author, this bill enacts the SAFE  
            Act which makes various declarations and improvements  
            regarding the rights and responsibilities of state employees.   
            The bill disallows standardization of work relative to a given  
            period of time and ensures contracting-out does not happen  
            if/when a state employee can do the job more economically. The  
            author states the bill also ensures professional employees are  
            not put in professional jeopardy and the bill requires the  
            state to more efficiently process claims of adverse action.  

           2)Background.   Existing law includes numerous provisions  
            defining the rights of employers and public employees in the  
            workplace.  It also establishes collective bargaining for most  
            employees who are not designated manager or supervisor, where  








                                                                  AB 872
                                                                  Page  2

            terms and conditions of employment are subject to negotiations  
            between the employer and the employees' exclusive  
            representative. 

            Current law authorizes an appointing power to take adverse  
            action against an employee for specified causes, and  
            establishes administrative procedures for review of an adverse  
            action by the State Personnel Board.  An adverse action is  
            required to commence within three years of the cause for  
            discipline, or in the case of fraud, embezzlement or  
            falsification, three years after the discovery of the  
            activity.  Current law also provides for enhanced rights and  
            protections for public safety officers and firefighters,  
            reflecting circumstances particular to their jobs.  These  
            include tighter timeframes for employers to commence adverse  
            actions. 

           3)Issues  . This bill raises important issues, including:

             a)   Codifying new employee rights and other provisions that  
               are normally subject to collective bargaining.  
             b)   Repeating protections and rights found elsewhere in law.
             c)   Granting priority to state employees in filling  
               permanent, overtime and on-call positions over excluded  
               employees and contractors.  These provisions giving  
               priority to civil service employees could be in conflict  
               generally with the merit civil service system established  
               by Article 7 of the State Constitution.

           4)Previous legislation  .  This bill is similar to AB 1744  
            (Portantino) of 2010, AB 920 (Portantino) of 2011 and AB 1655  
            (Dickinson) of 2012.  All were held on the Suspense File of  
            this committee. 

           Analysis Prepared by  :    Roger Dunstan / APPR. / (916) 319-2081