BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 501
Page 1
ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
AB 501 (Campos)
As Amended April 6, 2011
Majority vote
PUBLIC EMPLOYEES 4-2 APPROPRIATIONS 12-5
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Furutani, Allen, Ma, |Ayes:|Fuentes, Blumenfield, |
| |Wieckowski | |Bradford, Charles |
| | | |Calderon, Campos, Davis, |
| | | |Gatto, Hall, Hill, Lara, |
| | | |Mitchell, Solorio |
| | | | |
|-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
|Nays:|Mansoor, Harkey |Nays:|Harkey, Donnelly, |
| | | |Nielsen, Norby, Wagner |
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY : Clarifies that all public school employees have the
right to union representation. Specifically, this bill :
1)Amends the definition of "exclusive representative" to mean
the employee organization recognized or certified as the
exclusive negotiating representative for all public school
employees rather than just certificated or classified
employees.
2)Expands the definition of "public school employer" or
"employer' to include specified auxiliary organizations
established by the California Community Colleges and joint
powers agencies that are comprised solely of school agencies,
as specified.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Provides for the Educational Employment Relations Act (EERA)
which was approved by the Legislature and signed by Governor
Jerry Brown in 1975. In addition to a variety of other
provisions, EERA provides for a process by which employees of
the public schools and the community colleges may select an
exclusive representative to represent them as part of the
bargaining unit within their district. This representative
may then negotiate the terms and conditions of employment with
AB 501
Page 2
the governing board, with the results of these negotiations
subject to ratification by the employees.
2)Defines the term "exclusive representative" for purpose of the
EERA as the employee organization recognized or certified as
the exclusive negotiating representative of certificated or
classified employees in an appropriate unit of a public school
employer.
3)Defines the term "public school employer" for the purpose of
negotiations on collective bargaining agreements covering
public school employees, as the governing board of a school
district, a school district, a county board of education, a
county superintendent of schools, or certain charter schools.
4)Provides that, if authorized by their legislative or other
governing bodies, two or more public agencies meeting
specified conditions can enter into a joint agreement,
becoming joint powers agencies (JPA), which allows them to
exercise powers common to the contracting parties. "Public
agency" includes, but is not limited to, the federal
government or any federal department or agency, this state,
another state or any other state department or agency, a
county, county board of education, county superintendent of
schools, city, public corporation, public district, or
regional transportation commission of this or another state.
FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Assembly Appropriations
Committee:
1)Annual state mandate reimbursement costs of $500,000 to $1
million, depending on how many JPAs engage in collective
bargaining under the bill. State payments count against the
Proposition 98 guarantee.
2)Potential increased costs to school districts for wages and
benefit increases resulting from collective bargaining
agreements between JPAs and their employees. These costs would
not be reimbursable.
By extending collective bargaining requirements to JPAs under
EERA, this bill would increase state costs through the mandate
reimbursement process. According to the Department of
Education, there are 70 education-related JPAs in the state,
AB 501
Page 3
primarily for purposes of transportation and vocational
education services. Assuming all of these JPAs engaged in
collective bargaining, costs of this bill could reach
approximately $1.5 million. Many JPA employee groups, however,
are likely to forego EERA provisions given the nature of the
agreements reached with employers. Assuming half of all JPAs
utilized EERA, statewide costs would be approximately $750,000.
COMMENTS : According to the author, "In Castaic Union School
District v. CSEA (2010), the Public Employment Relations Board
(PERB) drastically narrowed the scope of those public school
employees covered by the EERA, and afforded all of the rights to
potential union representation under that statute.
"PERB ruled that noon-time duty aides were ineligible to receive
representation rights because they are neither certificated nor
classified public school employees."
Supporters state, "In another decision, PERB ruled that the San
Jose/Evergreen Community College District was not a 'joint
employer' with a Joint Powers Authority. In San Jose/Evergreen,
the employees had been considered public school employees until
the JPA was created. And even though they continued to perform
exactly the same work (teaching community college students),
they were now classified as non-school employees. This decision
allowed districts to circumvent the EERA by entering into
carefully crafted JPAs with each other to deny their employees
union representation."
The author concludes, "AB 501 would clarify existing law to
afford representational rights to all public school and
community college employees."
Opponents state, "JPAs are formed primarily for efficiency
reasons as providing certain services on a regional basis leads
to better economies of scale. AB 501 will lead to higher
administrative costs that will erase some of those
efficiencies."
This bill is similar to AB 1463 (Eng) of 2007 which would have
expanded the definition of public school employer or employer to
include certain joint powers agencies. This bill was held in
the Senate Appropriations Committee.
AB 501
Page 4
This bill is also similar to AB 91 (Hertzberg) of 1999 that was
vetoed by the Governor. In his veto message, the Governor
stated, "The costs incurred by public school employers for
collective bargaining are currently reimbursable by the State.
The need to extend collective bargaining in school-related joint
powers agencies has not been demonstrated. However, for school
districts and county offices of education choosing to form joint
powers agencies, this bill may result in situations where the
State is required to backfill Public Employees' Retirement
System contributions for employees whose employment is
transferred to joint powers agencies. Based on this, I am
unable to support this measure."
Analysis Prepared by : Karon Green / P.E., R. & S.S. / (916)
319-3957
FN: 0000912