BILL ANALYSIS
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 649|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 445-6614 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: AB 649
Author: Machado (D), et al
Amended: 6/8/00 in Senate
Vote: 27 - Urgency
SENATE PUBLIC EMP. & RET. COMMITTEE : 3-1, 5/30/00
AYES: Ortiz, Karnette, Soto
NOES: Haynes
NOT VOTING: Lewis
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE : 13-0, 6/7/00
AYES: Johnston, Alpert, Bowen, Burton, Escutia, Johnson,
Karnette, Kelley, Leslie, McPherson, Mountjoy, Perata,
Vasconcellos
ASSEMBLY VOTES NOT RELEVANT
SUBJECT : State employees: Memoranda of Understanding
clean up
SOURCE : Department of Personnel Administration
DIGEST : The bill makes various changes in the state
negotiated Memoranda of Understanding contracts for
1999-2001. These Memoranda of Understanding contracts need
technical clean-up. Also included are two provisions
reflecting other negotiated agreements. This bill contains
these key provisions:
1.Conform drug testing policy with the Unit 11 collective
bargaining agreement.
CONTINUED
AB 649
Page
2
2.Safety retirement.
3.Public Contract Code.
4.Rural Health Subsidy.
5.Employee Health Benefit Eligibility for Bargaining Unit
19.
6.Allow State Teachers' Retirement System members who
become State employees to stay in the State Teachers'
Retirement System, instead of joining the Public
Employees' Retirement System.
7.Permit Security Officers Employed By the State Department
of Justice to have Public Employees' Retirement system
State Peace Officer/ Firefighter Retirement Benefits.
Senate Floor Amendments of 6/8/00 double-join this bill to
AB 1441 (Lempert), which is currently awaiting the
Governor's signature.
Senate Floor Amendments of 5/24/00 delete the prior version
of the bill requiring state agency employers to make
payment of overtime wages no later than the payday for the
next regular payroll period.
ANALYSIS :
1.Drug Testing Policy
PROBLEM:
State Bargaining Unit 11 (Engineering and Scientific
Technician, represented by the California State Employee
Association) Memoranda of Understanding (MOU), which took
effect July 1, 1999, provides for an election of
remedies/forums when employees are disciplined or
rejected on probation for positive drug test results.
Existing law does not allow the employee to choose
between a neutral third party grievance procedure or an
appeal to the State Personnel Board (SPB). In addition,
AB 649
Page
3
statutory language is needed to make it clear that when
an employee elects a third party, his/her access to court
review is under the law governing the arbitration
process, and not under the law governing State Personnel
Board appeals.
This bill amends the Government Code and the Code of
Civil Procedure to conform with the Unit 11 collective
bargaining agreement.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The State Department of Personnel Administration (DPA)
anticipates savings.
State agencies are required to reimburse the SPB for all
costs incurred to conduct appeal hearings. State
agencies are also obligated to employ, or pay for,
individuals to represent the agency at appeal hearings.
Employees do not pay any of the SPB costs. Employees
generally receive no-cost representation from their
unions. Consequently, there is no reason for employees
not to appeal to the SPB; the State must bear a
disproportionate amount of the costs.
Under the terms of the Bargaining Unit 11 MOU, only the
union can invoke arbitration and the union must pay
one-half of the arbitrator's costs and fees.
Consequently, fewer hearings are anticipated and the cost
will be borne equally.
The California State Personnel Board states in opposition
that, "This bill would, among other things, make major
changes in the way appeals from adverse actions and
rejections during probation involving civil service
employees in Bargaining Unit 11 (engineering and
scientific technicians) are adjudicated.
Impact on state civil service :
A. "The State Personnel Board is opposed to the
provisions of the bill that infringe on the board's
constitutional obligations to review disciplinary
actions and rejections during probation taken against
AB 649
Page
4
employees in Bargaining Unit 11 relating to positive
drug test results. The California Constitution
mandates that the board administer and enforce the
merit aspects of the state civil service, including
reviewing disciplinary actions against state
employees.
B. "Existing law entitles every disciplined civil
service employee, as well as those rejected during
probation, to a hearing before the State Personnel
Board.
C. "AB 649 will greatly reduce the constitutional due
process rights currently afforded Unit 11 employees.
Under present law, Unit 11 employees may appeal
disciplinary actions and rejections during probation
to the board, where they are afforded a full
evidentiary hearing. If either party is dissatisfied
with the board's decision, they can seek review in the
superior court, and from there to the appellate
courts, to determine if the board's decision is
supported by substantial evidence and is consistent
with the state's merit principles. Under the process
envisioned by this bill, the decision of the
arbitrator is final and binding, even if the
arbitrator's decision is clearly contrary to existing
law and the state's merit principles. No meaningful
review of the arbitrator's decision is permitted.
D. "AB 649 violates the California Constitution by
removing the board's authority to investigate and hear
appeals from adverse actions and rejections during
probation relating to positive drug test results of
employees in Bargaining Unit 11 who opt for
arbitration.
E. "Sacramento Superior Court ruled a similar process
devised for Bargaining Unit 8 (firefighters) is
unconstitutional, finding that the board has a
constitutional obligation to ensure that adverse
actions have not resulted from political patronage or
other arbitrary actions antiethical to the merit
principle, and that neither civil service employees
nor their unions may collectively negotiate
AB 649
Page
5
alternative procedures for reviewing discipline that
waive the board's constitutionally mandated review
obligations.
F. "The board respectfully requests that AB 649 be
amended to delete those provisions that permit
Bargaining Unit 11 employees to waive board review of
adverse actions and rejections during probation."
1.Safety Membership for Excluded Employees
PROBLEM:
Existing law provides that DPA administers safety
retirement benefits for State employees through the
collective bargaining process, when this provision was
added to law, the inclusion of managers and supervisors
in the safety requirement was inadvertently omitted. In
addition, not all bargaining units agreed to the DPA
process of inclusion of managers and supervisors in
safety retirement.
This bill amends the Government Code (Section 19816.20
and Section 19816. 20 (d)) to include excluded employees
in the definition of "state employees" who are not
members of civil service and amend Section 20405.1 ( c )
to cover only those units that agreed to the provision in
collective bargaining.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None
2.Public Contract Code
PROBLEM:
Existing Public Contract Code was previously amended to
exclude DPA from the State Department of General Services
(DGS) review of contracts for benefits, health and
safety, and training services for those items bargained
in an MOU. Contracts covering "excluded employees"
(managers and supervisors), however, are not exempt from
DGS review.
AB 649
Page
6
This bill amends the Public Contract Code (Section
10295.4) to extend the exclusion to cover the benefit
contracts covering "excluded employees."
FISCAL IMPACT:
None
3.Rural Health Subsidy Appropriation and Appropriation For
Other Employee Compensation
PROBLEM:
Existing law, pursuant to SB 514 (Chesbro), Chapter 743
of 1999, authorized a rural health subsidy for state
employees and retirees who live in areas of the State
where there is no health maintenance organization (HMO)
available.
Monies were not appropriated to the Work and Family
Program and the Rural Health Subsidy Program pursuant to
Chapter 743 of 1999.
This bill appropriates money to fully fund the Employee
Compensation Package, fulfilling the State's obligations
made in the MOUs negotiated with the 21 bargaining units.
This is a technical change that appropriates the monies
that were agreed to in bargaining.
FISCAL IMPACT:
According to DPA, the $9.1 million current year cost did
not include unforeseen costs resulting from arbitration
that required additional funding for certain bargaining
units. This combined with revised data from PERS
reflecting additional enrollments necessitated the
current $12.6 million appropriation request.
4.Employee Eligibility for Bargaining Unit 19
PROBLEM:
AB 649
Page
7
As the result of an MOU agreed to in 1999, the employee
eligibility for representation in Bargaining Unit 19
(Health and Social Services Professionals, represented by
AFSCME) was changed to be consistent with all other State
employees. When the legislation was passed that ratified
the MOU for Unit 19, the change in employee eligibility
was inadvertently omitted.
This bill would amend Government Code Section 22754.2 to
remove Subsection 4, which defines employee eligibility
for Unit 19.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None. This employee eligibility change was never fully
implemented.
5.Allow STRS Members to Stay in STRS When Becoming State
Employees
PROBLEM:
Existing STRS law provides, pursuant to 1997 legislation,
that a STRS member who subsequently was employed by the
state Community Colleges in a position requiring PERS
membership may elect to remain in STRS.
This bill:
A.Allows any certificated teacher member of STRS who
becomes employed by the state to stay in STRS instead
of joining PERS.
B.Allows current State employees, who were vested
members of STRS and became mandatory members of the
PERS Second Tier plan, to elect to return to STRS
membership.
C.Apply only to employees who were hired after June 30,
1991 and before the date the First Tier plan became
effective for new employees represented by this Union.
D.Provides that employees hired on and after January 1,
AB 649
Page
8
2000 will have the option of membership under the
Second Tier or the First Tier plan.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None
1.Permit Security Officers Employed By the State Department
of Justice (DOJ) to have PERS State Peace
Officer/Firefighter (POFF) Retirement Benefits.
PROBLEM:
Existing PERS law specifically provides that security
officers of DOJ shall be "state miscellaneous" members of
PERS. "State miscellaneous" members of PERS receive a
retirement benefit based on the "2% @ age 55" formula,
and are covered by "Ordinary Disability Retirement"
benefits.
This bill provides that security officers of DOJ shall be
"state Peace Officer/Firefighter" members of PERS,
receiving a retirement benefit based on the "3% @ age 50"
formula, and are covered by "Industrial Disability
Retirement" benefits.
According to DPA:
"Initially the Security Officer, DOJ was not included in
POFF because, when the class was established, the
existing Attorney General did not want them included.
However, over the past 10 to 12 years, their duties have
significantly been expanded, necessitating recruitment of
a more highly trained Officer . The DOJ supports the
inclusion of the Security Officer into the POFF and we
(DPA) agreed to including them in bargaining."
FISCAL IMPACT:
Possible savings because state "POFF" members of PERS do
not participate in the federal Social Security program,
while "state miscellaneous members" of PERS are in Social
Security.
AB 649
Page
9
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: Yes Fiscal Com.: Yes
Local: No
SUPPORT : (Verified 6/9/00)
Department of Personnel Administration (source)
OPPOSITION : (Verified 6/9/00)
California State Personnel Board
DLW:cm 6/9/00 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****