BILL ANALYSIS
AB 230
Page 1
Date of Hearing: May 2, 2001
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC EMPLOYEES, RETIREMENT AND SOCIAL
SECURITY
Sally Havice, Chair
AB 230 (Goldberg) - As Amended: April 25, 2001
SUBJECT : Classified employees.
SUMMARY : Specifically, this bill enables school boards and
their classified employee representatives in non-merit school
districts to agree to binding arbitration on discipline and
termination matters and clarifies that merit school districts
are not precluded from negotiating a provision that makes the
findings and decisions of a hearing officer or other authorized
representative binding.
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown
COMMENTS : This bill is similar to AB 378 (Steinberg) of 1999
which was vetoed by Governor Davis. In his veto message, the
Governor stated, in part, that he saw "?no reason to alter the
current system of discipline in school and community college
districts with regard to classified employees. School districts
and community college districts should retain the authority
granted under current law."
Similar legislation also includes AB 2018 (Margolin) of 1985, AB
2997 (Margolin) of 1986, and SB 383 (Johnston) of 1991 which
were all vetoed by Governor Wilson.
A 1984 Public Employment Relations Board decision provided that
collective bargaining contracts could be negotiated that
included binding arbitration for discipline.
The court of appeal later ruled that the Education Code
prohibits a school district governing board from delegating its
exclusive authority to discipline classified employees to
binding arbitration.
This bill makes it permissive for school boards to delegate the
decision on discipline of non-merit school district classified
employees to binding arbitration. The decision to use binding
arbitration would occur as a result of collective bargaining
negotiations.
AB 230
Page 2
Supporters state that, "Third party arbitration systems have
been found to be effective. Disciplinary cases can be very
sensitive and many school boards or local community college
districts may not have the expertise to hold hearings in cases
that entail complicated hearings, evidentiary rulings and
detailed testimony and on cases that may have political
overtones. Moreover, school districts that utilize an
arbitration system (e.g., school districts with merit systems)
have been able to reduce the cost of personnel time."
Supporters conclude that, "This measure does not mandate
arbitration, nor does it include arbitration for salaries,
contracts or any other matter than discipline. Employees in
non-merit districts already have access to arbitration to
resolve grievances, this bill would only make it permissive for
bargaining units of classified employees to request binding
arbitration for disciplinary cases as well."
Opponents state, "Currently, school district governing boards
are given the responsibility to determine discipline for their
classified employees. Slowly but surely, school districts have
seen the erosion of their responsibilities pertaining to
employees." Opponents conclude that they would remove their
opposition to this bill if it was amended to make a disciplinary
decision by an arbiter permissible.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees
(Sponsor)
California School Employees Association (Co-sponsor)
California Labor Federation
California Teachers Association
Orange County Central Labor Council
Opposition
Association of California School Administrators
Analysis Prepared by : Karon Green / P.E., R. & S.S. /
(916)319-3957