Employee Relations 06/15/2012
California Public Employment Relations Board Approves Factfinding Regulations
At its June 14, 2012 meeting, the California Public Employment
Relations Board (PERB) moved forward to replace the existing
emergency regulations governing the facfinding process with
identical permanent regulations.
There was some discussion about the 45 day deadline for
requesting factfinding that exists in the regulations after a
labor-side attorney suggested there was not sufficient time to
allow mediation or other negotiation to occur prior to the
deadline. PERB staff indicated that some unions have requested,
and PERB has approved, holding the request for factfinding in
abeyance while local efforts to resolve the dispute continue. The
union must only submit its request within the timeframe, not
complete the procedure. CSAC communicated to PERB that the
deadline to request factfinding was critical to employers and
that we supported the regulations as proposed.
Anita Martinez, PERB Chair, also announced that PERB will hold an
Advisory Committee meeting on June 28, 2012 at its
Sacramento office to discuss:
- The transfer of the State Mediation and Conciliation Service to PERB and,
- A package of new regulations.
The regulations are not yet available for review, but PERB asks that anyone interested attend the meeting. CSAC will provide information about the proposed regulations once they are released.
CalPERS Approves 2013 Health Benefits Rate Package
Citing the cause as continuously increasing healthcare costs, the
California Public Employees’ Retirement System (CalPERS) Board of
Administration (Board) on Wednesday approved a 2013 health
benefits rate package that will raise overall premiums for
members by an average of 9.6 percent. The increase will mean an
average of an additional thirty dollars per month per member.
The package includes an average 8.5 percent coverage increase
(nine percent for Kaiser, 8.7 percent for Blue Shield Access+ and
7.9 percent for Blue Shield NetValue) for Basic Health
Maintenance Organizations (non-Medicare HMOs) and an average 10.8
percent increase (16.2 percent for PERS Choice, 5.3 percent for
PERSCare and no increase for PERS Select) for Basic Preferred
Provider Organizations (non-Medicare PPOs). Medicare plans will
experience a 10.5 percent overall decrease, as the new health
plan design changes include the conversion of Supplement to
Medicare plans from the Medicare Part Dee Retiree Drug Subsidy
program to the Employer Group Waiver Plans.
A major factor of the increase is the end of the Early Retiree
Reinsurance Program (ERRP) reimbursements under the Patient
Protection and Affordable Care Act. ERRP offered financial
assistance to health plan sponsors that provide early retirees
(those aged 55-64 years and therefore ineligible for Medicare)
and their families with health coverage. Administered by the
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), ERRP was
appropriated with $5 billion in funding, which must be used by
health plan sponsors to lower plan participants’ costs, reduce
plan sponsors’ cost of providing coverage, or both. Applicants
for funding receive reinsurance of high-cost claims for retirees
and their families. CalPERS utilized $200 million in ERRP funds
in previous years to offset premium increases.
The new rates and benefit provisions will take effect on January
1, 2013.
Employee Rights
AB 1831 (Dickinson) – Oppose
As Amended on June 11, 2012
Assembly Bill 1831, by Assembly Member Roger Dickinson, would
prohibit local agencies from inquiring into the criminal history
of an applicant on any initial employment application (unless the
position is one for which a criminal history background check is
already required by law). Local agencies would, however, retain
the ability to consider the applicant’s criminal history once the
agency has determined he or she meets the minimum employment
requirements.
AB 1831 is part of the “Ban the Box” movement in which states,
cities and counties across the country have ended inquiring into
an applicant’s criminal history on the initial job application in
an effort to reduce ruling out the criminally convicted
population. The language in AB 1831 also references the Criminal
Justice Realignment Act (AB 109) and its focus on reducing
recidivism and promoting rehabilitation of offenders and their
re-entry into the workforce.
AB 1831 was recently amended to exempt law enforcement positions.
CSAC joins the California District Attorneys Association, the
California State Sheriffs Association, the Chief Probation
Officers of California, the Rural Counties Representatives of
California and the League of California Cities in opposition.
AB 1831 will be heard on June 20 in the Senate Governance and
Finance Committee.
Public Safety
AB 2543 (Alejo) – Oppose
As Amended on June 11, 2012
AB 2543, by Assembly Member Luis Alejo, would prohibit a public
agency from taking punitive action against a public safety
officer, or denying a promotion on grounds other than merit
because the officer’s name is placed on a Brady list or the
officer’s name is subject to disclosure pursuant to Brady v.
Maryland (1963) 373 U.S. 83. AB 2543 would place unnecessary
restrictions on a public agency’s ability to discipline a public
safety officer for the underlying action that resulted in that
officer being placed on the Brady list because the employer will
be required to prove that the punitive action is not related to
the existence of the Brady list. Amendments to AB 2543 further
require the public agency, in order to raise the issue in an
administrative appeal, to prove the underlying act or omission
for which the officer’s name was placed on a Brady list and that,
as a result, the officer is found to be subject to punitive
action.
CSAC believes that public agency employers need the authority to
appropriately discipline their workforce in order to maintain
trust and confidence from the community they serve. AB 2543
simply adds another administrative process public employers must
go through to effectively manage their employees without citing
any evidence that public safety officers are not sufficiently
protected by the Public Safety Officers Procedural Bill of Rights
Act.
AB 2543 will be heard in the Senate Public Safety Committee on
June 26.