BILL ANALYSIS �
SB 931
Page 1
SENATE THIRD READING
SB 931 (Vargas)
As Amended April 25, 2011
Majority vote
SENATE VOTE :24-12
PUBLIC EMPLOYEES 4-2
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Furutani, Allen, Ma, | | |
| |Wieckowski | | |
| | | | |
|-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
|Nays:|Mansoor, Harkey | | |
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY : Prohibits public agencies from using public funds to pay
external consultants or legal advisors to counsel the employer on
how to minimize or deter the exercise of guaranteed public employee
rights related to employer-employee relations, and exempts certain
payments, as specified. Specifically, this bill :
1)Prohibits public agencies from using public funds to pay external
consultants or legal advisors to counsel the employer on how to
minimize or deter the exercise of guaranteed employee rights under
the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act (MMBA), the Ralph C. Dills Act (Dills
Act), the Educational Employment Relations Act (EERA), and the
Higher Education Employer-Employee Relations Act (HEERA).
2)Exempts payments for representation of a public sector employer
before a court, administrative agency, or tribunal for
arbitration, or for engaging in collective bargaining on behalf of
the employer with respect to wages, hours, or other terms and
conditions of employment.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Establishes the MMBA, which provides a statutory framework for
local government employer-employee relations.
2)Establishes the Dills Act, which provides a statutory framework
for state employer-employee relations.
SB 931
Page 2
3)Establishes the EERA, which provides a statutory framework for
public school employer-employee relations.
4)Establishes the HEERA, which provides a statutory framework for
employer-employee relations at the University of California,
California State University, and Hastings College of Law.
5)Defines "recognized employee organization" as an employee
organization that has been formally acknowledged by a public
agency as an employee organization that represents employees of
the public agency.
6)Provides for negotiations between a state or local public employer
and representatives of recognized employee organizations
concerning wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of
employment.
7)Provide that public agencies and employee organizations must not
interfere with, intimidate, restrain, coerce or discriminate
against public employees because of an exercise of their
guaranteed statutory rights related to employer-employee
relations.
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown
COMMENTS : According to the author, "In the United States, there
exists a multi-billion dollar union-busting industry, comprised of
thousands of attorneys and consultants specializing in training and
counseling clients on effective 'union avoidance'. The same 'union
avoidance' specialists are often retained for legal services and
representation for employers in the realm of labor and employment
law. Regardless of how these firms receive payment and the exact
category of services contracted for, employees of state-funded
agencies are public employees and should not be subjected to
employer relations matters influenced by outside advisors
specializing in 'union avoidance'."
According to the sponsor, the American Federation of State, County
and Municipal Employees, "Public agencies should not use scarce
public funds to circumvent public employees' guaranteed rights to a
voice on the job. Public employees are harassed, intimidated and
threatened with unnecessarily antagonist legal action for conducting
themselves in a manner that is protected by law. Public agencies
such as the University of California hire outside legal counsel who
SB 931
Page 3
specialize in 'union avoidance' to coach management on ways to
circumvent worker rights. It is vitally important during this time
of economic hardship that all public funds are handled responsibly
and invested with the best interest of the state in mind."
Opponents state, "Our organizations believe that SB 931 is an
unreasonable and impermissible interference with attorney-client
privilege and right to counsel. We are concerned that proposed
changes create serious impairments to two important rights to public
agencies...Our organizations believe that a public agency is
entitled to seek counsel, and freely communicate thoughts and ideas
with counsel, in order to best determine its rights and
obligations?Second, the proposed language in SB 931 is so vague the
only way to determine whether a communication would be wrongful
would be to require disclosure of the communication, which would
also violate the attorney-client privilege. Additionally, the
threat of disclosure would likely deter employers from getting
advice on issues that may fall in the grey area, of which there are
many."
Opponents further state, "Most public agency employers who consult
for sevices from an employment attorney are not seeking to curtail
employee rights or the right of its workers to unionize. There are
public agency employers who act in good faith but do not have
expertise on staff to deal with negotiating with unions and as such
are required to seek outside counsel. In addition, many of the
issues that a union is able to negotiate on behalf of its members
are matters which may bind the public agency to a contract worth
millions of dollars. We believe it is inappropriate to expect the
ratepayers of a water agency to be held liable for contracts in
which their best interests were not taken into account."
Analysis Prepared by : Karon Green / P.E., R. & S.S. / (916)
319-3957
FN: 0001355