BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    



                                                                       



           ------------------------------------------------------------ 
          |SENATE RULES COMMITTEE            |                   SB 656|
          |Office of Senate Floor Analyses   |                         |
          |1020 N Street, Suite 524          |                         |
          |(916) 651-1520         Fax: (916) |                         |
          |327-4478                          |                         |
           ------------------------------------------------------------ 
           
                                         
                                 THIRD READING


          Bill No:  SB 656
          Author:   DeSaulnier (D)
          Amended:  8/17/09
          Vote:     21

           
           SENATE PUBLIC EMP. & RET. COMMITTEE  :  5-2, 4/27/09
          AYES:  Correa, Ducheny, Liu, Padilla, Wiggins
          NOES:  Ashburn, Benoit

           SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE  :  11-0, 5/11/09
          AYES:  Kehoe, Cox, Corbett, Denham, DeSaulnier, Hancock,  
            Leno, Oropeza, Runner, Wolk, Wyland
          NO VOTE RECORDED:  Walters, Yee

           SENATE FLOOR  :  30-8, 5/26/09
          AYES:  Alquist, Calderon, Cedillo, Corbett, Correa, Denham,  
            DeSaulnier, Dutton, Florez, Hancock, Harman, Kehoe, Leno,  
            Liu, Lowenthal, Maldonado, Negrete McLeod, Oropeza,  
            Padilla, Pavley, Romero, Runner, Simitian, Steinberg,  
            Strickland, Wiggins, Wolk, Wright, Wyland, Yee
          NOES:  Aanestad, Ashburn, Benoit, Cogdill, Cox,  
            Hollingsworth, Huff, Walters
          NO VOTE RECORDED:  Ducheny, Vacancy

           ASSEMBLY FLOOR  :  76-0, 9/2/09 - See last page for vote


           SUBJECT  :    Public employment:  collective bargaining:   
          peace officers

           SOURCE  :     Police Officers Research Association of  
          California
                                                           CONTINUED





                                                                SB 656
                                                                Page  
          2



           DIGEST  :    This bill provides that a local bargaining unit  
          which is comprised of a majority of persons who are peace  
          officers will be excluded from the jurisdiction of the  
          Public Employment Relations Board for purposes of dispute  
          resolutions.

           Assembly Amendments  make a clarifying change.

           ANALYSIS  :    The Public Employment Relations Board (PERB)  
          resolves disputes and enforces the statutory duties and  
          rights of employers and employees under the Educational  
          Employment Relations Act, the Higher Education  
          Employer-Employee Relations Act, the Ralph C. Dills Act,  
          and the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act.

          Currently, PERB has jurisdiction over unfair labor disputes  
          of all miscellaneous employees, however, pursuant to SB 739  
          (Solis), Chapter 910 of 2000, law enforcement agencies are  
          excluded from PERB and therefore, are under the direct  
          jurisdiction of the courts.  However, it has been noted  
          that there are certain bargaining units which are comprised  
          of both miscellaneous employees and employees with peace  
          officer status, and the existing statute is not clear as to  
          the jurisdiction of those employees' disputes.  In those  
          units, PERB has asserted jurisdiction over cases that  
          affected the entire unit, whereby, an individual peace  
          officer under a mixed bargaining unit may file grievances  
          directly with the California Supreme Courts.

          This bill provides that "mixed units", those bargaining  
          units comprised of both peace officer and miscellaneous  
          employees, shall be exempted from PERB's jurisdiction if  
          the majority of the unit is comprised of peace officers.

           FISCAL EFFECT  :    Appropriation:  No   Fiscal Com.:  Yes    
          Local:  No

          According to the Senate Appropriations Committee, the  
          Judicial Council has indicated that this bill will not  
          result in any increase in costs to the courts, and PERB may  
          experience very minor savings.








                                                                SB 656
                                                                Page  
          3

           SUPPORT  :   (Verified  9/3/09)

          Police Officers Research Association of California (source)
          Orange County Employees' Association

           OPPOSITION  :    (Verified  9/3/09)

          California State Association of Counties
          Regional Council of Rural Counties

           ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT  :    In their sponsor letter, PORAC  
          states, "Currently, Government Code Section 3511 exempts  
          "persons who are peace officers as defined in Section 830.1  
          of the Penal Code" from the Jurisdiction of the Public  
          Employee Relation Board (PERB).  The wording of this  
          statute is authority over dispute resolution.  Public  
          employees, whom are not peace officers, are required to go  
          to PERB with their labor disputes.  Peace officers are  
          exempted from this; thereby requiring they go to the  
          California Supreme Court for resolution.  A problem arises  
          when a peace officer is a part of a "mixed unit", comprised  
          of both peace officers and miscellaneous employees (such as  
          Dispatchers, Community Services Officers and Crime Scene  
          Investigators).  It is unclear in the writing of this law  
          who would have jurisdiction over these disputes.  This  
          creates substantial risk of jurisdiction being challenged,  
          either in PERB or the Superior Court.  SB 656 seeks to  
          remedy the uncertainty of the statute by clarifying that  
          these mixed units, should the unit be comprised of a  
          majority of peace officers, will be excluded from PERB  
          jurisdiction.  This will enable the disputes of these peace  
          officers to remain in the Superior Court, thereby ending  
          the confusion. In addition, by providing certainly as to  
          jurisdiction, SB 656 will reduce costs associated with  
          challenging jurisdiction of mixed units."

           ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION  :    In their letter of opposition,  
          the California State Association of Counties and the  
          Regional Council of Rural Counties state, "SB 656 seeks to  
          exempt all employees in a mixed bargaining unit from the  
          jurisdiction of the Public Employment Relations Board  
          (BERB) if the bargaining unit includes a majority of peace  
          officers.  Counties believe that it is inappropriate to  
          extend what is now a narrow exemption from PERB for peace  







                                                                SB 656
                                                                Page  
          4

          officers to a large group of miscellaneous employees.   
          Counties do not see a significant problem with the current  
          structure where peace officer members of a mixed bargaining  
          unit resolve their disputes in court while miscellaneous  
          employees go before PERB.  If a problem exists in a  
          particular bargaining unit, existing law provides peace  
          offices with the right to establish a separate bargaining  
          unit.  SB 656 would treat all employees in mixed bargaining  
          units the same and we see no reason to do so.  In face,  
          this change could have the unintended result of having  
          similar bargaining units with a majority of peace officers.  
           

           ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 
          AYES:  Adams, Ammiano, Anderson, Arambula, Beall, Bill  
            Berryhill, Tom Berryhill, Blakeslee, Block, Blumenfield,  
            Brownley, Caballero, Charles Calderon, Carter, Chesbro,  
            Conway, Cook, Coto, Davis, De La Torre, De Leon, DeVore,  
            Duvall, Emmerson, Eng, Evans, Feuer, Fletcher, Fong,  
            Fuentes, Fuller, Furutani, Gaines, Galgiani, Garrick,  
            Gilmore, Hagman, Harkey, Hayashi, Hernandez, Hill, Huber,  
            Huffman, Jeffries, Jones, Knight, Krekorian, Lieu, Logue,  
            Bonnie Lowenthal, Ma, Mendoza, Miller, Monning, Nava,  
            Nestande, Niello, Nielsen, John A. Perez, V. Manuel  
            Perez, Portantino, Ruskin, Salas, Saldana, Silva,  
            Skinner, Smyth, Solorio, Audra Strickland, Swanson,  
            Torlakson, Torres, Torrico, Tran, Villines, Bass
          NO VOTE RECORDED:  Buchanan, Hall, Yamada, Vacancy


          DLW:do  9/3/09   Senate Floor Analyses 

                         SUPPORT/OPPOSITION:  SEE ABOVE

                                ****  END  ****