BILL ANALYSIS ------------------------------------------------------------ |SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | SB 402| |Office of Senate Floor Analyses | | |1020 N Street, Suite 524 | | |(916) 445-6614 Fax: (916) | | |327-4478 | | ------------------------------------------------------------ UNFINISHED BUSINESS Bill No: SB 402 Author: Burton (D) and Villaraigosa (D), et al Amended: 8/10/00 Vote: 21 SENATE PUBLIC EMP. & RET. COMMITTEE : 3-1, 4/12/99 AYES: Ortiz, Baca, Karnette NOES: Lewis SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE : 8-3, 5/27/99 AYES: Alpert, Bowen, Burton, Escutia, Karnette, Leslie, McPherson, Perata NOES: Johnston, Johnson, Mountjoy SENATE FLOOR : 23-15, 6/1/99 AYES: Alarcon, Alpert, Baca, Bowen, Burton, Chesbro, Costa, Dunn, Escutia, Figueroa, Hayden, Hughes, McPherson, Murray, O'Connell, Ortiz, Peace, Perata, Polanco, Schiff, Sher, Solis, Speier NOES: Brulte, Haynes, Johannessen, Johnson, Johnston, Kelley, Knight, Lewis, Monteith, Morrow, Mountjoy, Poochigian, Rainey, Vasconcellos, Wright ASSEMBLY FLOOR : Not available SUBJECT : Employer-employee relations: law enforcement officers and firefighters SOURCE : California Professional Firefighters Peace Officers Research Association of California CONTINUED SB 402 Page 2 California Department of Forestry Firefighters California Association of Highway Patrolmen DIGEST : This bill provides final and binding arbitration of disputes regarding economic issues within the scope of arbitration between any local agency employer and employee organizations representing its firefighter or law enforcement employees, as specified. Assembly Amendments delete the state's mandate and, instead, provides that unless otherwise agreed to by the parties, the costs of the arbitration proceeding and the expenses of then arbitration panel, except those of the employer representative, shall be borne by the employee organization. ANALYSIS : Existing law, the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act, which provides statutory framework for labor relations between all local public employers and their employees, permits, but does not require, the mediation of disputes between these parties. Existing law, the Ralph C. Dills State Employer-Employee Relations Act, which provides the statutory framework for labor relations between the State of California and its employees, permits, but does not require, the arbitration of disputes between these parties. This bill provides final and binding arbitration of any matter subject to bargaining in disputes between any public employer in California and its employees. This bill: 1.Establishes in the Code of Civil Procedure Title 9.5, "Arbitration of Firefighter and Law Enforcement Officer Labor Disputes". 2.Provides statutory legislative findings and declarations regarding the need for the arbitration procedures proposed by this bill stating, in part, that strikes taken by firefighters and law enforcement officers against public employers are a matter of statewide SB 402 Page 3 concern and are not in the public interest. Additionally, the legislative findings and declarations state that the dispute resolution procedures contained in this bill provide the appropriate method for resolving public sector labor disputes that would otherwise lead to strikes by firefighters or law enforcement officers. Finally, the bill states that it is not the intent of the Legislature that this title apply to any law enforcement policy that pertains to how law enforcement officers interact with members of the public or pertains to police community relations. 3.Defines "scope of arbitration" for purposes of the bill to mean economic issues, including salaries, wages and overtime pay, health and pension benefits, vacation and other leave reimbursements, incentives, differentials, and all other forms of remuneration. The scope of arbitration shall not include any issue that is protected by what is commonly referred to as the "management rights" clause contained in Section 3504 of the Government Code. Notwithstanding the foregoing, any employer subject to this title that is not exempt under Section 1299.9 may supersede this subdivision by adoption of an ordinance that establishes a broader definition of "scope of arbitration." 4.Provides that if an impasse has been declared after the representatives of an employer and firefighters or law enforcement officers have exhausted their mutual efforts to reach agreement over matters within the scope or arbitration and if the parties are unable to agree to the appointment of a mediator, or the mediator appointed is unable to effect settlement, the employee organization may request, in writing to the employer, that their differences be submitted to an arbitration panel. 5.Provides for a 3-member arbitration panel, with one member chosen by each of the parties and the third (who serves as Chair) picked by the first two members. If the parties are unable to pick a third person, the mediator may serve as chairperson. If the mediator is unable or unwilling to serve as chairperson, the bill provides a process for choosing a person to service as Chair SB 402 Page 4 culminating in the submission of an odd-numbered list of names by either the American Arbitration Association or the California State Mediation and Conciliation Service. The list is then subjected to the striking of names by both parties until only one name remains and that person is appointed to serve as Chair. 6.Provides that during the dispute resolution process: A. Employees shall not be permitted to engage in strikes that endanger public safety. B. No employer shall interfere with, intimidate, restrain, coerce, or discriminate against an employee organization or employee because of an exercise of rights under this title. C. No employer shall refuse to meet and confer or condition agreement upon a memorandum of understanding based upon an employee organization's exercise of rights under this title. 7.Requires the arbitration panel to meet within 10 days of its establishment, or any other period to which the parties agree, to begin their investigation or to take any other action that they deem appropriate. 8.Provides that the arbitration panel may administer oaths, and subpoena both witnesses and any information relating to the subject matter before the panel. 9.Requires that, five days prior to the beginning of the arbitration panel hearings, parties must submit the last best offer of settlement on each of the issues within the scope of arbitration not previously agreed to by the parties prior to arbitration. 10.Provides that the arbitration panel, within 30 days after conclusion of the hearing, will decide the disputed issues by selecting the last best offer package the most nearly complies with certain factors specified in the bill. 11.Provides that the parties shall receive a copy of the SB 402 Page 5 decision and have five days before the decision is made public and binding to meet and attempt to resolve their differences and, by mutual agreement, amend or modify the arbitration panel's decision. 12.Provides that the provisions of this bill shall not apply to city or county employer governed by a charter that was amended prior to January 1, 2001, to incorporate local arbitration provisions. 13.Provides that the costs of the arbitration proceeding and the expenses of the arbitration panel (except for those of the employer representative) will be borne by the employee organization unless otherwise agreed to by the parties. 14.Makes legislative findings and declarations that the duties of local agency employer representatives under this bill are substantially similar to the duties required under current law and, therefore, the costs incurred by a local agency in performing those duties are not reimbursable state-mandated costs. "Grandfathering" of All Local Arbitration Provisions The Senate Public Employment and Retirement Committee analysis indicates that 19 charter cities, one county and one city and county have opted to provide local arbitration procedures. CA Charter Cities with Arbitration Procedures Compiled 02/25/99 by the California Professional Firefighters --------------------------------------------------------------------------- | City |Pane|Organiza|Arbitrat|Is |Initial|Second|Public|Poiso| | | |l |tion or | ion |Med/ | Arb. | Arb. | | n | | SB 402 Page 6 | |Mbrs|Departme| Type |Arb |Selecti|Select|Notice|Pill?| | | |. | nt | |Re- |on |ion | | |Issues| | | |Referral| |quire|(time |(time |(time | | NOT | | | | | |d |frame) |frame)|frame)| |subjec| | | | | | | | | | | t to | | | | | | | | | | |Arbitr| | | | | | | | | | |a-tion| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |-----------+----+--------+--------+-----+-------+------+------+-----+------| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |-----------+----+--------+--------+-----+-------+------+------+-----+------| |VALLEJO |1 |AAA, SM |Final |YES |Unknown|Unknow|Unknow|NO |Discip| | | |& CS |offer, | | |n |n | |line | | | | |issue | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |-----------+----+--------+--------+-----+-------+------+------+-----+------| |OAKLAND |1 |SM & CS |Traditio|NO |within |NONE |NONE |NO |Retire| | | | |nal | |5 days | | | |-ment | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |-----------+----+--------+--------+-----+-------+------+------+-----+------| |HAYWARD |1 |SM & CS |Traditio|NO |within |NONE |NONE |NO |NONE | | | | |nal | |5 days | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |-----------+----+--------+--------+-----+-------+------+------+-----+------| |PALO ALTO |3 |SM & CS |Final |YES |within |within|after |NO |NONE | | | | |offer, | |3 days | 10 |10 | | | | | | |issue | | |days |days | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |-----------+----+--------+--------+-----+-------+------+------+-----+------| |SAN JOSE |3 |SM & CS |Final |NO |within |within|after |NO |NONE | | | | |offer, | |3 days | 10 |10 | | | | | | |issue | | |days |days | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |-----------+----+--------+--------+-----+-------+------+------+-----+------| |ALAMEDA |3 |SM & CS |Economic|NO |within |within|after |YES |NONE | SB 402 Page 7 | | | |s Only | |3 days | 10 |10 | | | | | | | | | |days |days | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |-----------+----+--------+--------+-----+-------+------+------+-----+------| |*REDWOOD |3 |SM & CS |Final |YES |within |within|after |NO |NONE | |CITY | | |offer, | |3 days | 10 |10 | | | | | | |issue | | |days |days | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |(part of | | | | | | | | | | |Local | | | | | | | | | | |2400) | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |-----------+----+--------+--------+-----+-------+------+------+-----+------| |GILROY |3 |SM & CS |Final |YES |within |within|after |NO |NONE | | | | |offer, | |3 days | 10 |10 | | | | | | |issue | | |days |days | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |-----------+----+--------+--------+-----+-------+------+------+-----+------| |**SAN |3 |SM & CS |Final |NO |within |within|after |NO |Retire| |FRANCISCO | | |offer, | |3 days | 10 |10 | |ment | | | | |issue | | |days |days | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |-----------+----+--------+--------+-----+-------+------+------+-----+------| |PETALUMA |3 |SM & CS |Final |NO |within |within|after |NO |NONE | | | | |offer, | |3 days | 10 |10 | | | | | | |issue | | |days |days | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |-----------+----+--------+--------+-----+-------+------+------+-----+------| |*SAN |1 |Unknown |Final |YES |Unknown|Unknow|Unknow|NO |NONE | |LEANDRO | | |offer, | | |n |n | | | | | | |issue | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |(part of | | | | | | | | | | |Local 55) | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |-----------+----+--------+--------+-----+-------+------+------+-----+------| |STOCKTON |3 |SM & CS |Final |YES |within |within|after |NO |NONE | | | | |offer, | |3 days | 10 |10 | | | SB 402 Page 8 | | | |issue | | |days |days | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |-----------+----+--------+--------+-----+-------+------+------+-----+------| |SANTA ROSA |3 |SM & CS |Final |NO |within |within|after |NO |NONE | | | | |offer, | |3 days | 10 |10 | | | | | | |issue | | |days |days | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |-----------+----+--------+--------+-----+-------+------+------+-----+------| |NAPA |3 | |Final |NO |within |within|after |NO |NONE | | | | |offer, | |3 days | 10 |10 | | | | | | |issue | | |days |days | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |-----------+----+--------+--------+-----+-------+------+------+-----+------| |SANTA CRUZ |3 |SM & CS |Final |YES |within |within|after |NO |NONE | | | | |offer, | |3 days | 10 |10 | | | | | | |issue | | |days |days | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |-----------+----+--------+--------+-----+-------+------+------+-----+------| |*SACRAMENTO|3 |SM & CS |Final |NO |within |within|after |NO |NONE | | CITY | | |offer, | |3 days | 10 |10 | | | | | | |Issue | | |days |days | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |(part of | | | | | | | | | | |Local 522) | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |-----------+----+--------+--------+-----+-------+------+------+-----+------| |*SACRAMENTO|3 |SM & CS |Final |NO |within |within|after |YES |NONE | | COUNTY | | |offer, | |3 days | 10 |10 |(appe| | | | | |Issue | | |days |days |al | | | | | | | | | | |pendi| | |(part of | | | | | | | |ng) | | |Local 522) | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |-----------+----+--------+--------+-----+-------+------+------+-----+------| |ANAHEIM |3 |AAA |Final |YES |within |within|after |NO |NONE | | | | |offer, | |3 days | 10 |10 | | | | | | |issue | | |days |days | | | | | | | | | | | | | | SB 402 Page 9 | | | | | | | | | | | |-----------+----+--------+--------+-----+-------+------+------+-----+------| |MODESTO |3 |SM & CS |Final |NO |within |within|after |NO |NONE | | | | |offer, | |3 days | 10 |10 | | | | | | |issue | | |days |days | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |-----------+----+--------+--------+-----+-------+------+------+-----+------| |SALINAS |3 |SM & CS |Final |NO |within |within|after |NO |NONE | |CITY | | |offer, | |3 days | 10 |10 | | | | | | |issue | | |days |days | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |-----------+----+--------+--------+-----+-------+------+------+-----+------| |WATSONVILLE|3 |SM & CS |Final |NO |within |within|after |NO |NONE | | | | |offer, | |3 days | 10 |10 | | | | | | |issue | | |days |days | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | --------------------------------------------------------------------------- KEY : *Not individually affiliated with the CPF, but part of a larger CPF local. **1992-1994 = Arbitration type was Final Offer Package. SM & CS = State Mediation and Conciliation Service; AAA = American Arbitration Association FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: No Local: No Fiscal Impact (in thousands) Major Provisions 1999-2000 2000-01 2001-02 Fund SB 402 Page 10 Arbitration costs -- unknown -- General, Special & Local SUPPORT : (Verified 8/18/00) California Professional Firefighters (co-source) Peace Officers Research Association of California (co-source) California Department of Forestry Firefighters (co-source) California Association of Highway Patrolmen (co-source) Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs California Correctional Supervisors Organization California Independent Public Employees Legislative Council California Labor Federation California Organization of Police and Sheriffs California Peace Officers Association California State Firefighters' Association California State Sheriffs Association Congress of California Seniors Consumer Federation of California Federal Firefighters Association Firefighters Associations of Alhambra, Alpine, American Canyon, Benicia, Berkeley, Cathedral City, Downey, Eureka, Fairfield, Glendale, Hayward, Healdsburg, Hemet City, Hermosa Beach, Humboldt, Idyllwild, Kern County, La Habra, Lodi, Long Beach, Marin, Menlo Park, Montclair, Mountain View, Napa City, Nevada County, Newport Beach, Orange City, Orange County, North Highlands, Pasadena, Redlands, Sacramento, San Bernardino, San Diego, San Joaquin County, San Jose, San Luis Obispo, San Mateo, San Miguel, San Ramon, Santa Clara County, Santa Rosa, Stockton, Torrance, Vacaville, Vallejo International Association of Firefighters Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs Los Angeles County Probation Officers Union Los Angeles County Professional Peace Officers Association Marin County Deputy Sheriffs Association Marshals Association of California Orange County Employees' Association San Bernardino County Safety Employees Association San Joaquin county Deputy Sheriffs Association SB 402 Page 11 Southern California Alliance of Law Enforcement United Professional Fire Fighters OPPOSITION : (Verified 8/18/00) Cities of Alameda, Arcadia, Bellflower, Benicia Fire Department, Carlsbad, Cerritos, Chula Vista, Concord, Coronado, Cotati, Culver City, Daly City, Foster City, Fontana Police Department, Fountain Valley, Fremont, Irvine, Huntington Beach, Jackson, Lakewood, La Quinta, Long Beach, Los Angeles, Los Gatos Police Department, Marysville, Monte Sereno Police Department, Moreno Valley, Oakland, Oceanside, Ontario, Orange, Pismo Beach, Poway, Rancho Cucamonga, Redding, Riverbank, San Clemente, San Luis Obispo, San Mateo, San Marino, Santa Maria, Signal Hill, Signal Hill Police Department, South Gate, Stockton, Torrance, Turlock Police Services, Ventura, Vernon, Victorville Whittier, Larkspur, Vista, and Glendora California Fire Chiefs Association California Peace Officers' Association California Police Chiefs' Association California State Association of Counties California State Sheriffs' Association Corona Chamber of Commerce Fire Districts Association of California Independent Cities Association League of California Cities Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce Los Angeles County Association of Chiefs of Police Los Angeles County Sheriffs Los Angeles Police Department Madera County Board of Supervisors Stockton City Council Sutter County Board of Supervisors County of Sacramento ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : According to the author, "More than two dozen states require arbitration as a means to resolve public employee collective bargaining disputes, and arbitration has been used in California cities since 1970. Currently, 21 local agencies impose arbitration to assure that fair negotiations take place; and these arbitration procedures have been 100 percent effective in preventing SB 402 Page 12 firefighter and law enforcement officer strikes in California. This bill provides a 'final offer' arbitration procedure for employers and public safety employees; and it is initiated only after an impasse has been declared--where all efforts to reach a collective bargaining agreement have failed. The governing body of any local agency may 'opt out' of this bill's requirements by submitting for voter approval a local ballot measure that exempts that local public agency from arbitration, and employer administered discipline and "community-oriented policing" policies are specifically exempted from this bill. The arbitration panel must limit its arbitration award to only those issues that (l) were made as a proposal or counter-proposal in bargaining; (2) have not been previously agreed to in bargaining; and (3) do not infringe upon employer managerial policy decision making. The arbitration panel must choose the "last best offer" submitted by the two parties that most nearly complies with the standards of fairness, which assures that the award will not place a financial strain on the public purse. This bill encourages both sides to be more realistic and honest in their demands at the bargaining table. This bill is a fair and peaceful way to resolve bargaining disputes, while protecting the welfare of the public with tough strike sanctions." ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION : Cities in opposition to this bill argue that this bill mandates a system of compulsory and binding arbitration for the resolution of collective bargaining disputes/impasse for police and fire employees. They contend that this bill would severely damage local government's ability to fairly negotiate with public safety bargaining units. Cities continue that they have long opposed compulsory and binding arbitration as a means to settle collective bargaining disputes, and that there is no circumstance under which compulsory and binding arbitration is acceptable as an impasse remedy. They state it disenfranchises the voters from their elected officials by removing their budget authority over police and fire services and giving it to an outside arbitrator who is not accountable to the citizens. TSM:jk 8/21/00 Senate Floor Analyses SB 402 Page 13 SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE **** END ****