BILL ANALYSIS
Senate Committee on Labor and Industrial Relations
Richard Alarcon, Chair
Date of Hearing: June 27, 2001 2001-2002 Regular
Session
Consultant: Patrick W. Henning Fiscal: No
Urgency:No
Bill No: AB 230
Author: Goldberg
Amended: June 11, 2001
Subject:
Classified Employees: Permissive arbitration.
Purpose:
To permit school districts and community colleges, that
have not adopted a civil service merit system for its
classified employees, to submit employee disciplinary cases
to third party arbitration, except for peace officers.
Analysis:
Existing law provides that governing boards of school
districts or community colleges may adopt a merit system
(i.e., civil service system) for its classified employees,
establishing, among other things, a personnel commission
and a framework for testing the merit and fitness of
employees. A personnel commission may delegate its
personnel management over disciplinary matters to a hearing
officer to conduct a hearing on the merits of the case and
issue a recommendation to the commission.
Governing boards that have not adopted a merit system for
personnel management of classified employees are permitted
to delegate authority to a third party for the resolution
grievances of classified employee, but not in disciplinary
cases.
This Bill would permit governing boards of non-merit school
districts and community colleges, pursuant to the terms of
a collective bargaining agreement with an employee
organization, to delegate the decision on discipline of
classified employees to binding or non-binding arbitration.
Disputes regarding school peace officer discipline would
be exempted.
Comments:
1. Proponents state that this measure simply makes it
permissive for school districts to delegate the decision on
discipline of classified employees to arbitration. It does
not mandate arbitration. It does leave such a decision to
the local school board. Since discipline cases can be very
sensitive, many governing boards may prefer to use a
professional arbitrator, rather than acting as a
specialized judge in complicated personnel cases. Also,
utilization of the arbitration process has been found to
reduce personnel costs.
Supporters also note that every other public employer and
public employee in the state has that right. Classified
employees are the only public employees who do not have a
right to bargain for third party appeals for discipline.
2. Opponents argue that school district governing boards
are given the responsibility to determine discipline for
their classified employees and are held accountable for
their actions. Districts need to retain a wide range of
authority in order to fully implement the state's
accountability objectives. Responsibilities should not be
delegated to an outside arbitrator that the local voting
populace can't hold accountable.
3. Classified Service : School district employees in the
classified service are those not requiring specific
certificate qualification (i.e., teachers). Such
occupations generally involve non-management positions in
transportation, food service, data processing, office and
clerical, instructional aid, athletic training, and
security.
4. Administrative and Court Decision : In 1984 the Public
Hearing Date: June 27, 2001 AB
230
Consultant: Patrick W. Henning
Page 2
Senate Committee on Labor and Industrial Relations
Employment Relations Board in San Mateo City School
District v. PERB [Decision #0383E] found that collective
bargaining contractual provisions could be negotiated that
included binding arbitration in discipline cases, and that
such action did not violate Education Code provisions
controlling classified employee service. Later that same
year, the California Appeals Court in United Steelworkers
v. Board of Education [(1984) 162 Cal.App.3rd] ruled that
the Education Code prohibited a governing board from
delegating its exclusive authority to discipline classified
employees to binding arbitration.
5. Legislative History : This measure passed the Assembly
by a 53 to 20 vote.
6. Prior Legislation : This measure is similar to AB 378
(Steinberg) of 1999 which was vetoed by Governor Davis. In
his veto message, the Governor stated, in part, that
"?(S)chool districts and community college districts should
retain the authority
granted under current law." However, AB 378 also applied
to school districts with merit systems and did not exempt
school peace officers.
Support:
American Federation of State, County, and Municipal
Employees (Co-Sponsor)
California School Employees Association (Co-Sponsor)
California Labor Federation, AFL-CIO
California Teachers Association
California Teamsters Public Affairs Council
Opposition:
Association of California School Administrators
California School Boards Association
Community College League of California
Five Individual letters.
Hearing Date: June 27, 2001 AB
230
Consultant: Patrick W. Henning
Page 3
Senate Committee on Labor and Industrial Relations