Employee Relations 09/16/2013
Legislation Now Awaits Action by the Governor
The following bills of importance to counties in the area of Employee Relations now await action by Governor Brown.
Collective Bargaining
AB 537 (Bonta) - Oppose
As Amended on September 9, 2013
Assembly Bill 537, by Assembly Member Rob Bonta, would require
the governing body of a public agency to vote to accept or reject
a tentative agreement reached by authorized representatives of
the public agency and recognized employee organization within 30
days of the first date it is publicly considered. The bill also
makes several changes to arbitration:
Applies the provisions of the California Arbitration Act to the
enforcement of arbitration agreements under the MMBA;
Prohibits a rejection of a request for arbitration due to
procedural challenges (timelines, failure to exhaust
pre-arbitration remedies); and,
Makes an agreement to arbitrate a dispute enforceable, even if
the conduct in question may also constitute an unfair labor
practice.
Employee Rights
AB 218 (Dickinson) - Oppose
As Amended on May 24, 2013
Assembly Bill 218, by Assembly Member Roger Dickinson, would,
beginning July 1, 2014, prohibit state agencies and cities,
counties, and special districts from asking an applicant for
employment to disclose information regarding their conviction
history, including on any initial employment application, until
the agency determines that the applicant meets minimum
qualifications for the position. The bill would exempt law
enforcement positions from this requirement.
Counties will recall that Assembly Member Dickinson carried a
substantially similar bill in the 2011-2012 legislative session,
AB 1831. That bill, which was held in the Senate Governance and
Finance Committee and only applied to cities and counties. Like
AB 1831, CSAC opposes AB 218 because it would remove a county’s
discretion to design an employment policy that works locally.
AB 729 (Hernandez) - Oppose
As Amended on August 21, 2013
Assembly Bill 729, by Assembly Member Roger Hernandez, would
provide union agents with evidentiary privilege to refuse to
disclose confidential information acquired from communication
between them and a represented employee. The bill defines “union
agents” as elected union officials and employees of a union who
handle contract negotiations or grievance representation.
Current law provides such privilege to physician-patient,
lawyer-client, domestic violence victim-counselor, sexual assault
victim-client, human trafficking victim-caseworker and
clergyperson-penitent communication.
Public Safety
AB 1373 (Perez) - Oppose
As Amended on August 27, 2013
Assembly Bill 1373, by Assembly Speaker John A. Perez, would
extend from 240 weeks to 480 weeks the statute of limitations for
when a claim can be filed for death benefits for dependents of a
firefighter or peace officer who dies of certain occupational
injuries (cancer, blood-borne infections diseases and
tuberculosis).
Counties will recall that Speaker Perez last year carried the
same bill, AB 2451, which was vetoed by the Governor. A previous
version of AB 1373 did not contain a specific time period for the
statute of limitations. Sponsors of the bill maintained that this
was to allow for discussions between stakeholders regarding time
periods that will fairly compensate surviving dependents while
maintaining the interests of public agencies to appropriately
plan for potential budget obligations.
SB 313 (de Leon) - Oppose
As Amended on September 6, 2013
Senate Bill 313, by Senator Kevin de Leon, would prohibit a
public agency from taking punitive action against a public safety
officer, or denying promotion on grounds other than merit,
because that officer’s name is placed on a Brady list. The Brady
list is any system, index, list, or other record containing the
names of peace officers whose personnel files are likely to
contain evidence of dishonesty or bias, which is maintained by a
prosecutorial agency or office in accordance with the holding
in Brady v. Maryland.
SB 313 would, however, allow a public agency to take punitive or
personnel action against a public safety officer based on the
underlying acts or omissions for which that officer’s name was
placed on the Brady list, but prohibits the introduction of any
evidence that an officer’s name was placed on a Brady list in any
administrative appeal of a punitive action.
CSAC is concerned that SB 313 could restrict management’s ability
to appropriately discipline peace officers. The bill failed
passage in the Assembly Public Safety Committee on Tuesday, but
was granted reconsideration and will be heard again on July 2.