AB 220 - Firefighter Bill of Rights Signed

In one of the most shocking developments this legislative year in the labor and employment area, the Governor signed AB 220 - the Firefighter Bill of Rights (FBOR). The newly enacted statute gives firefighters the same basic rights as peace officers under the Peace Officer Bills of Rights (POBAR). The requirements of AB 220 include:

* Specifying the conditions under which investigations and interrogations that may lead to punitive action of firefighters must be conducted;
* Requiring that any punitive action against a firefighter be taken within one year of discovery;
* Requiring that a firefighter be allowed to read and sign any adverse comment before it is entered into their personnel file.
* Prohibiting forced lie detector tests of a firefighter;
* Specifying that a firefighter cannot be required to disclose financial information unless otherwise required by law or court order;
* Requiring that a fire chief, prior to removal, must be provided with written notice stating the reasons for removal and an opportunity for administrative appeal;
* Allowing a firefighter's locker or other storage space to be searched only in the firefighter's presence, or with their consent, or with a valid search warrant.

While there may be sound public policy reasons for POBAR, it is difficult to fathom why firefighters need the same protections. Amazingly, AB 220 received almost full Republican support in the Assembly, and that support likely explains why the bill was signed.

Rialto Police Benefit Assn. v. City of Rialto

Rialto Police Benefit Assn. v. City of Rialto (Court of Appeal Case No. E039649) (Issued 10/3/07)

This case arose under the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act and presented an issue of first impression: Is a city’s decision to enter into a contract with the county sheriff for law enforcement services, rather than continue to provide such services through the city’s own police department, subject to the meet and confer requirements of the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act (MMBA) (Gov. Code, § 3500 et seq.)? The court answered in the affirmative.

More on this case later.

Good News: AB 553 Vetoed

If enacted, AB 553 would have denied cities and counties the right to seek injunctions directly with the courts when faced with strikes affecting health and safety. Fortunately, the bill was vetoed. Here is the Governor’s message:

To the Members of the California State Assembly:

I am returning Assembly Bill 553 without my signature. This bill would provide the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) with exclusive authority to determine whether public health and safety would be at risk in strike or lockout situations. Doing so would add an unnecessary layer of bureaucracy and potentially place the public at risk. Cities and counties have common law and statutory authority over matters of public health and safety. When local governments seek injunctive relief from a strike, they are doing so because of a potential threat to the public health and safety of citizens. It is therefore imperative that local governments have access to immediate injunctive relief from superior courts during strike situations. As the courts are sufficiently suited to address matters of public health and safety, there is no reason to force decisions on injunctive relief into the slower PERB process. For these reasons I am returning this bill without my signature.

Sincerely,
Arnold Schwarzenegger

District's Ability to Regulate "Politcal Speech" is Limited

Desert Community College District (PERB Case No. 1921-E) (8/10/07)

PERB held that a community college district violated the Educational
Employment Relations Act (EERA) when it attempted to prohibit one of its unions from discussing a Board of Trustees election at a union meeting held on campus.

The key issue was whether the district’s conduct was justified by the Education Code, specifically sections 7054 and 7055. Section 7054 prohibits the use of district "funds, services, supplies, or equipment" to support or oppose ballot measures and/or candidates. PERB found this language inapplicable since the union was using the district’s “facilities.” PERB also found section 7055 - which allows a college to adopt rules and regulations governing "(p)olitical activities on the premises of the local agency" - to be inapplicable as the district had failed to adopt any such rules or regulations.

Arguably, PERB took a narrow view of the section 7054 prohibition on using “services, supplies or equipment” to support candidates. However, key here is the fact that the union’s meeting was in a non-instructional setting. Also, there were no facts suggesting that the union’s use of the district’s facilities would be interpreted as an endorsement of the union’s speech. Given these facts, PERB would have likely reached the same conclusion even if the district had adopted rules under section 7055.

50% Participation Rule Deemed Unreasonable

County of Imperial (PERB Dec. No. 1916M) (Issued 6/28/07)

At issue in this case was a local rule requiring that in a representation election, a majority of the employees in the bargaining unit must vote in order for the vote to be valid. PERB held that the rule was “unreasonable” under the MMBA. In reaching its decision, PERB compared the language of MMBA section 3507.l (a) and 3502.5(d). The former section states that a majority of votes cast in representation elections is required, not that a majority of employees must vote. In the latter section - governing rescission elections - the language expressly requires a majority of unit employees to vote. Because the Legislature expressly required majority participation in certain elections and not others, PERB held that a local rule setting different requirements was unreasonable.

This case is one of the first PERB cases finding a local rule to be “unreasonable” under the MMBA. The holding here can be interpreted to set the statutory language of the MMBA as a baseline for evaluating reasonableness. Local rules that deviate or frustrate the MMBA’s statutory provisions will almost certainly be found unreasonable. For example, MMBA section 3507.1 now allows for the establishment of majority support through ‘card check.’ A local rule that ignores ‘card check’ or requires some other kind of election can be expected to be found unreasonable.

Retirement Health Benefits for Current Employees Negotiable

Madera Unified School District (PERB Dec. No. 1907E) (Issued 5/25/07)

Under the statutes administered by PERB, it has been generally understood that retirement benefits for current employees are within the scope of representation and thus must be negotiated. Benefits affecting current retirees, however, have been understood to be a permissive topic of bargaining.

In this case, the union alleged that the employer unilaterally changed the way it calculated its monetary contribution towards health care for retirees. The Board agent dismissed the charge on the ground that the alleged change did not affect any current employees and any changes to the benefits of current retirees were not within the scope of representation – they were rather a permissive subject of bargaining.

The Board generally affirmed the Board agent’s analysis that only benefits for current employees are within the scope of representation. However, the Board held that any changes to retiree benefits are still negotiable to the extent they affect what current employees will receive in the future.

The Board’s decision is potentially problematic in several respects. First, the Board’s holding has the potential to swallow the rule that benefits for retirees are a permissive subject of bargaining. This is because almost any change to the current benefits of retirees arguably affects the future benefits of current employees.

The decision also raises an interesting question regarding remedies. Consider what would have happened had the Board found a violation. By its own admission, the Board would have no jurisdiction to order a remedy for current retirees, who were the only individuals affected by the alleged conduct. The Board could only order a remedy as to current employees; but here they suffered no harm. Presumably, the Board could order the change rescinded as it applied to the future benefits of current employees. In order words, the Board could order the employer to restore the promised benefit for current employees. However, how would the Board ever enforce such a promise? The employer’s promise would not become actionable until the current employee retired; but once that occurred, the Board would again lose jurisdiction!

This is not to say, of course, that employers can freely renege on promised benefits. There are certainly other avenues of enforcement. The point is that this issue is not one that lends itself to PERB enforcement.

Right of Individual Representation Restored Under EERA

On June 28, 2007, the Governor signed AB 1194 (Karnette) which restores language in EERA section 3543 granting individuals a protected right of representation. In 2000, for reasons never explained (in reality, it was most likely a careless drafting error), the Legislature deleted the following language from EERA when it approved unrelated amendments:

Public school employees shall also have the right to refuse to join or participate in the activities of employee organizations and shall have the right to represent themselves individually in their employment relations with the public school employer, except that once the employees in an appropriate unit have selected an exclusive representative and it has been recognized pursuant to Section 3544.1 or certified pursuant to Section 3544.7, no employee in that unit may meet and negotiate with the public school employer.

Based on the deletion of this critical language, PERB held in Woodland Joint Unified School District (2004) PERB Dec. No. 1722E, that the Legislature must have intended to eliminate the individual right of representation under EERA. Even if the Legislature did not so intend, PERB held that because of the change in statutory language, it was the Legislature's responsibility to correct the error. Accordingly, PERB held that prior cases recognizing such a right (See Pleasant Valley School District (1988) PERB Dec. No. 708) were no longer valid in light of the change to section 3543.

Sponsored by the California Teachers Association, AB 1194 was intended to restore the individual right of representation under EERA and to statutorily abrogate PERB’s decision in Woodland Joint Unified. Under AB 1194, the following language has been added to section 3543:

Public school employees shall have the right to represent themselves individually in their employment relations with the public school employer, except that once the employees in an appropriate unit have selected an exclusive representative and it has been recognized pursuant to Section 3544.1 or certified pursuant to Section 3544.7, no employee in that unit may meet and negotiate with the public school employer.

Note that AB 1194 does not completely restore the language that was deleted in 2000. Not surprisingly, CTA did not see fit to restore the individual right to “refuse to join or participate in the activities of employee organizations . . .”