BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 778
Page 1
Date of Hearing: January 15, 2014
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC EMPLOYEES, RETIREMENT AND SOCIAL
SECURITY
Rob Bonta, Chair
AB 778 (Bocanegra) - As Amended: January 6, 2014
SUBJECT : Local public employee organizations: dispute:
factfinding panel.
SUMMARY : Makes changes to the Meyers-Milas-Brown Act (MMBA)
with respect to impasse procedures and factfinding.
Specifically, this bill :
1)Requires that when an employee organization requests that a
public agency submit the parties' differences to a factfinding
panel, that request must be made in writing.
2)Provides that if either party disputes that a genuine impasse
has been reached, the issue as to whether an impasse exists
may be submitted to the Public Employment Relations Board
(PERB) for resolution, and requires PERB to notify the parties
within five working days if it determines that an impasse
existed as of the date of written notice of the declaration of
the impasse.
3)Specifies that the above provision does not apply to the City
and County of San Francisco.
4)Defines "impasse" for purposes of these provisions to mean
that the parties to a dispute over a matter within the scope
of collective bargaining have reached a point that future
meetings to resolve the issue would be futile.
5)Maintains the existing rights of the County of Los Angeles and
the City of Los Angeles to amend its employee relations
commissions' rules and regulations providing for impasse
resolution procedures.
EXISTING LAW , as established by the MMBA:
1)Contains various provisions intended to promote full
communication between public employers and their employees by
providing a reasonable method of resolving disputes regarding
wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment
AB 778
Page 2
between public employers and public employee organizations.
2)Provides that if, after a reasonable amount of time,
representatives of the public agency and the employee
organization fail to reach agreement, the two parties may
mutually agree on the appointment of a mediator and equally
share the cost.
3)Authorizes an employee organization to request that the
parties' differences be submitted to a factfinding panel not
sooner than 30 days, but not more than 45 days, following the
appointment of a mediator or entering into a mediation
process. If the dispute was not submitted to mediation, an
employee organization may request that the parties'
differences be submitted to a factfinding panel not later than
30 days following the date either party provided the other
with written notice of a declaration of impasse.
4)Allows an employer to implement their last, best and final
offer once any applicable mediation and fact-finding
procedures have been exhausted and, despite the implementation
of the best and final offer, allows a recognized employee
organization the right each year to meet and confer.
5)Delegates jurisdiction over the employer-employee relationship
to PERB and charges PERB with resolving disputes and enforcing
the statutory duties and rights of local public agency
employers and employee organizations.
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown
COMMENTS : According to the author, "?when a public employer
and a public employee organization reach an impasse in
collective bargaining and the dispute has not been submitted to
voluntary mediation, the employee organization may request that
the parties' differences be submitted to a factfinding panel not
later than 30 days following the date that either party provided
the other with a written notice of a declaration of impasse.
PERB has interpreted this provision, in its regulations and its
administrative rulings, to require the employee organization to
make this request within 30 days of a declaration of impasse,
without regard to whether the employer and union have in fact
reached a genuine impasse in the negotiations. In practice,
this means that an employer can declare impasse prematurely, or
even fraudulently, and the employee organization will be faced
AB 778
Page 3
with the choice of either (a) requesting factfinding and thereby
waiving its right to engage in further good-faith bargaining or
(b) forfeiting its right to submit the dispute to factfinding
when a genuine impasse does in fact occur. This loophole could
allow a public employer to evade its duty to bargain in good
faith by declaring impasse prematurely or in bad faith. Under
this bill, if one of the parties disputes that a genuine impasse
has been reached, it may submit that dispute to PERB for
resolution. If the Board determines that a genuine impasse
exists, the parties' differences would be subject to the
remainder of the factfinding procedures of the MMBA."
Opponents are concerned that the bill will override local rules,
delay the conclusion of contract negotiations, and create a
greater administrative burden and unnecessary costs for PERB.
Opponents state, "AB 778 continues to undermine a local agency's
long-held authority to establish local rules for resolving an
impasse. The Legislature has seen wisdom in not having a
state-wide uniform approach in certain aspects of the collective
bargaining process. One of those elements is avoiding
requirements that delay the conclusion of contract negotiations.
We believe that having PERB directly involved after an alleged
impasse is reached promotes unnecessary delays."
This bill is similar to AB 616 (Bocanegra) from last year which
is currently on the Senate Suspense file.
AB 1606 (Perea), Chapter 314, Statutes of 2012, authorized an
employee organization to request that the parties' differences
be submitted to a fact-finding panel not sooner than 30 days,
but not more than 45 days, following the appointment of a
mediator or entering into a mediation process. If the dispute
was not submitted to mediation, an employee organization may
request that the parties' differences be submitted to a
factfinding panel not later than 30 days following the date
either party provided the other with written notice of a
declaration of impasse.
AB 646 (Atkins), Chapter 680, Statutes of 2011, allowed local
public employee organizations to request factfinding if a
mediator is unable to reach a settlement within 30 days of
appointment, defines certain responsibilities of the factfinding
panel and interested parties, and made specified exemptions from
these provisions.
AB 778
Page 4
AB 195 (Hern�ndez), Chapter 271, Statutes of 2011, specified
that a public agency is prohibited from, among other things,
imposing reprisals on or discriminating against employees
because of their exercise of rights guaranteed by the act, and
specified that knowingly providing a recognized employee
organization with inaccurate information regarding the financial
resources of the public employer constituted a refusal or
failure to meet and negotiate in good faith. The bill also
declared that the provisions were intended to be technical and
clarify of existing law.
AB 1156 (N��ez), Chapter 215, Statutes of 2003, clarified the
role of PERB, relative to its jurisdiction in resolving disputes
and enforcing the statutory duties and rights of local public
agency employers and employees under the MMBA, to include the
power to order elections, conduct any election it orders and
adopt rules to apply in areas where a public agency has no rule.
The bill also empowered employees of a local public agency and
employee organization to challenge a rule or regulation of a
public agency in violation of MMBA.
AB 1281 (Cedillo), Chapter 790, Statutes of 2001, required local
agencies to recognize an employee organization as the exclusive
representative of the employees in an appropriate unit based
upon a signed petition, authorization cards, or union membership
cards showing that a majority of the employees desire such
recognition.
SB 739 (Solis), Chapter 901, Statutes of 2000, revised MMBA to
transfer jurisdiction for the resolution of unfair labor
practice charges and representation disputes to PERB.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
Coalition of California Utility Employees
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers
Opposition
California Special Districts Association
California State Association of Counties
Rural County Representatives of California
Urban Counties Caucus
AB 778
Page 5
Analysis Prepared by : Karon Green / P.E., R. & S.S. / (916)
319-3957