Skip to content
<!-- Decorative image -->

Card Check Already a Reality in California’s Public Sector

As I noted in my previous blog entry, both unions and employers are gearing up for a huge fight over the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA). Because the EFCA amends the National Labor Relations Act, which does not cover the public sector, it will not directly affect California public employers. Even if it did, California public employers have been living with card check for years. In California, all the statutes covering the public sector, except for the Dills Act, require the recognition of an exclusive representative solely by a showing of majority support (ie card check). (See MMBA (Gov Code…

Read More
<!-- Decorative image -->

Employee Free Choice Act More Than Just Card Check

Both unions and employers around the country are marshaling their forces for the upcoming war over the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) (H.R. 1409, S. 560). Dubbed “card check” by employers, the EFCA would easily be the most significant amendment to the National Labor Relations Act since its enactment. Under the EFCA, the NLRB would be required to certify a union as the exclusive representative if it presented evidence (usually signed authorization cards) of majority support. In such a situation, there would be no secret ballot election.However, the EFCA does a lot more than just authorize card check. The EFCA…

Read More
<!-- Decorative image -->

Vallejo MOUs May Be Voided in Bankruptcy

According to the Vallejo Times Herald, the bankruptcy judge for the City of Vallejo ruled on Friday that the City might be able to void its labor contracts as a way to escape bankruptcy. The ruling by the bankruptcy judge answers a question that has never been answered in California: whether public agencies in California can void labor contracts through Chapter 9 bankruptcy proceedings. Although the judge held that labor contracts may be voided through bankruptcy, the judge declined to rule on whether the City of Vallejo could do so in its situation. Instead, the court urged the parties to…

Read More
<!-- Decorative image -->

Oral Argument Set in Two Major Cases

IAFF Local 188 v. PERB (1st DCA Case No. A114959)This is the appeal of PERB’s decision in City of Richmond (2004) PERB Decision No. 1720-M. In that case, PERB held that a decision to layoff employees is not within the scope of representation under the MMBA. IAFF is arguing that layoffs should be negotiable where there is an impact on safety and workload.Oral argument is scheduled before the First District Court of Appeal for March 10, 2009, at 9:00 am.Sonoma County v. Superior Court (1st DCA Case No. 122450)The issue in this case is whether SB 440—which mandates interest arbitration…

Read More
<!-- Decorative image -->

Statute of Limitations is Not Jurisdictional; But is Also Not an Affirmative Defense

Long Beach Community College District (2009) PERB Decision No. 2002-E (Issued on 1/30/09)The saga continues. The facts in this case arose back in 2001. The case first came before the Board in 2003 on a dismissal. In that case, Long Beach Community College District (2003) PERB Decision No. 1564 (Long Beach CCD I), the Board considered the effect of the parties’ non-binding grievance procedure on the statute of limitations for filing a charge under EERA. Under existing precedent at that time, the Board did not recognize the doctrine of “equitable tolling” as it considered the limitations period a jurisdictional prerequisite.After…

Read More