BILL ANALYSIS
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 230|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 445-6614 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: AB 230
Author: Goldberg (D)
Amended: 6/11/01 in Senate
Vote: 21
SENATE LABOR & IND. RELATIONS COMMITTEE : 5-3, 6/27/01
AYES: Alarcon, Figueroa, Kuehl, Polanco, Romero
NOES: Margett, McClintock, Oller
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 50-23, 5/7/01 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT : Classified employees
SOURCE : American Federation of State, County, and
Municipal
Employees
California School Employees Association
DIGEST : This bill permits school districts and community
colleges that have not adopted a civil service merit system
for 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
CONTINUED
AB 230
Page
2
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
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.
Administrative and Court Decision : In 1984 the Public
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.
Prior Legislation
This bill is similar to AB 378 (Steinberg) of 1999 which
was vetoed by Governor Davis. In his veto message, the
AB 230
Page
3
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.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: No
Local: No
SUPPORT : (Verified 6/27/01)
American Federation of State, County, and Municipal
Employees (co-source)
California School Employees Association (co-source)
California Labor Federation, AFL-CIO
California Teachers Association
California Teamsters Public Affairs Council
OPPOSITION : (Verified 6/27/01)
Association of California School Administrators
California School Boards Association
Community College League of California
Fresno Unified School District Board of Education
Las Virgenes Unified School District Board of Education
Hacienda La Puente Unified School District Board of
Education
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : 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.
AB 230
Page
4
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION : 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.
ASSEMBLY FLOOR :
AYES: Alquist, Aroner, Calderon, Canciamilla, Cardenas,
Cardoza, Chan, Chavez, Cohn, Corbett, Correa, Diaz,
Dickerson, Dutra, Firebaugh, Florez, Frommer, Goldberg,
Havice, Jackson, Keeley, Kehoe, Koretz, Liu, Longville,
Lowenthal, Maldonado, Matthews, Migden, Nakano, Nation,
Negrete McLeod, Oropeza, Papan, Pavley, Pescetti, Reyes,
Salinas, Shelley, Simitian, Steinberg, Strom-Martin,
Thomson, Vargas, Washington, Wayne, Wesson, Wiggins,
Wright, Hertzberg
NOES: Aanestad, Ashburn, Bates, Bogh, Briggs, Bill
Campbell, John Campbell, Cogdill, Cox, Daucher, Harman,
Hollingsworth, Kelley, La Suer, Leach, Leonard, Leslie,
Maddox, Mountjoy, Robert Pacheco, Runner, Strickland,
Wyman
NC:sl 6/29/01 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****