Employee Relations 06/21/2013
Public Employment Relations Board Hears Oral Argument; Approves Rulemaking Package
In a rare acceptance of oral argument, the Public Employment
Relations Board (PERB) met June 13 to hear oral argument
in City of Lompoc v. Lompoc Police Officers Association;
Lompoc Police Officers Association v. City of Lompoc.
At issue in this case is whether PERB has jurisdiction over peace
officers in mixed bargaining units. CSAC and the California State
Association of Counties submitted a joint brief in support of the
City of Lompoc’s position that PERB does not have jurisdiction
over peace officers in a mixed unit. If PERB were to exercise
jurisdiction over peace officers in mixed units, those officers
would have “two bites at the apple” meaning they could seek a
PERB remedy and if unsatisfactory, could also file a charge in
court. This is a bad policy outcome that we do not believe was
intended when peace officers, generally, were excluded from
PERB’s jurisdiction. CSAC awaits the outcome of this case and
will keep counties apprised of the decision from PERB.
In other business, PERB approved moving forward to the Office of
Administrative Law with a package of regulations related to: 1)
representation and agency shop elections conducted by the State
Mediation and Conciliation Service (SMCS) pursuant to the county
local rules, and 2) the appealability of a Board Agent’s
determination of the sufficiency of a factfinding request. For a
summary of the proposed regulations please see our previous
report here.
Public Safety: Death Benefits
AB 1373 (Perez) - Oppose
As Introduced on February 22, 2013
Assembly Bill 1373, by Assembly Speaker John A. Perez, would
extend, for an amount of time that remains unspecified in the
bill, 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 a substantially
similar bill, AB 2451, that would have extended the statute of
limitations from 240 weeks to 480 weeks; that legislation was
vetoed by the Governor.
Sponsors of AB 1373 maintain that the extension in the bill
remains unspecified 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. At a recent
meeting of the Commission on Health and Safety and Workers’
Compensation (CHSWC), a representative from Bickmore Risk
Services presented a report on the potential impacts of AB 1373,
concluding that, due to a lack of usable data (including data
regarding cancer rates of California’s public safety officers
versus the general population, survival rates since the cause of
the safety officer’s death is not always cancer, and the
percentage of safety officers’ cancer diagnoses that are even
reported as workers’ compensation claims), any foresight into
the impact of this legislation on future death benefit claim
rates and, therefore, on benefit payouts made by public
agencies, would be a huge assumption at most.
AB 1373 will be heard in the Senate Labor and Industrial
Relations Committee on June 26. Counties are encouraged to oppose
the bill.
Contracting Out
SB 556 (Corbett) - Oppose
As Amended on June 19, 2013
Senate Bill 556, by Senator Ellen Corbett, would prohibit
contractors that perform labor or services for a public entity
from displaying a seal, emblem, insignia, trade, brand name, or
any other term, symbol, or content on a vehicle or uniform that
could be interpreted as implying that the labor or services are
being provided by employees of the public agency, unless specific
disclosure requirements are followed.
Counties will recall a substantially similiar bill authored last
year by Assembly Member Bonnie Lowenthal, which CSAC also opposed
as the bill places a significant financial burden on private
businesses that contract with public agencies, a cost that will
likely be shifted to the public entity that contracts for the
service. Further, we are unaware of any problems – in
general or specifically – associated with a private contractor
wearing a similar uniform or having a similar vehicle that cause
confusion for the public and necessitate a need for this change
in law.
SB 556 will be heard in the Assembly Judiciary Committee on June
25.