BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 2126
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 30, 2014
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Mike Gatto, Chair
AB 2126 (Bonta) - As Amended: March 26, 2014
Policy Committee: PERSSVote:5-1
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
No Reimbursable: No
SUMMARY
This bill amends the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act (MMBA) to allow
either party in a dispute to request mediation, and clarifies
certain aspects of the fact-finding process the parties can
invoke with respect to an impasse. Specifically, this bill:
1)Allows either the public agency or the employee organization
to request mediation if they fail to reach agreement instead
of requiring both parties to agree to mediation, and requires
that the parties agree upon the appointment of a mediator
within five days of the request.
2)Specifies that if the parties fail to agree on the appointment
of a mediator, either party may request the Public Employment
Relations Board (PERB) to appoint a mediator, and requires
PERB to appoint the mediator within five days of receiving the
request.
3)Allows the parties to submit to a fact-finding panel any
differences that arise from any dispute over any matter within
the scope of representation as to which an obligation to meet
and confer exists and are not limited to negotiations
conducted after an impasse arises; allows an employee
organization to voluntarily waive its right to request a
fact-finding panel.
4)Allows the fact-finding panel, when arriving at its findings
and recommendations, to be guided by those specified criteria
that the panel deems relevant to the dispute.
FISCAL EFFECT
AB 2126
Page 2
1)Based on PERB estimates of staffing necessary to administer
the provisions of this bill, the fiscal impact of
administration is approximately $800,000 (GF).
2)Though the bill is not keyed a local mandate, there could be
substantial state mandated reimbursement of local costs. The
amount would depend on the number of requests for mediation.
Reimbursable costs could be in the millions of dollars. PERB
staff raised the possibility of exceeding 100 additional
mediation cases annually. The Commission on State Mandates
has approved a test claim for any local government subject to
the jurisdiction of PERB that incurs increased costs as a
result of a mandate, meaning their costs are eligible for
reimbursement.
COMMENTS
1) Purpose. According to the author and co-sponsors, this bill
conforms the mediation provisions of MMBA to those provisions
of the Educational Employment Relations Act (EERA), the Dills
Act and the Higher Education Employer-Employee Relations Act,
thereby requiring mediation when requested by either party.
The bill also resolves certain ambiguities that have arisen
following the implementation the fact-finding process created
by AB 646 (Atkins), Chapter 680, Statutes of 2011.
2) Impasse determination by the PERB. Supporters assert AB 2126
is intended to conform MMBA impasse procedures to the EERA and
others. Unlike the EERA, however, the bill does not include a
provision requiring PERB to determine that an impasse exists
prior to granting a request for mediation. PERB has raised
the concern that, without this language, application of the
existing rules and procedures for impasse determinations and
mediation requests under EERA to the MMBA could result in
significant litigation.
3) Fact-finding clarification. According to supporters, doubt
has arisen as to whether the statutory fact-finding process
can be invoked over impasse on any issue within the scope of
representation, or whether the process is limited to disputes
over the negotiation of a memorandum of understanding. This
AB 2126
Page 3
ambiguity has resulted in several instances of litigation.
The amendments reflect the PERB's current construction of the
fact-finding provisions in the MMBA and are intended to
resolve the instances of litigation and clarify the precise
scope of differences in a dispute that may be submitted to
fact-finding.
4) Opposition. Several local governments and associations oppose
AB 2126, arguing it runs contrary to the central premise of
the MMBA - that local public agencies are permitted to enact
their own reasonable rules and regulations governing employee
relations. Opponents assert that the current standard of
mutual consent for requesting mediation fosters constructive
bargaining between the parties, and allowing either party to
claim impasse undermines good faith collaboration and
consultation. Opponents argue the additional demand on
mediation services will further increase dispute resolution
costs to local governments.
5) Previous legislation. The mediation request provisions of
this bill are similar to provisions included in AB 537
(Bonta), Chapter 785, Statutes of 213, and AB 646 (Atkins),
Chapter 680, Statutes of 2011. Those provisions, however,
were deleted from AB 537 and AB 646 prior to passage. AB 616
(Bocanegra) also addressed mediation provisions in the MMBA.
AB 616 was held by the Senate Committee on Appropriations.
Analysis Prepared by : Joel Tashjian / APPR. / (916) 319-2081