Court and Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) decisions, commentary on California public sector labor relations

[UPDATE (5/20/10): Just received word that MCPAA has filed an appeal of this decision, so it's not yet final.]County of Mendocino (2010) PERB Decision No. 2104-M (Issued on 4/21/10) Facts:In 2006, the Mendocino County Public Attorneys Association (MCPAA) successfully petitioned to remove several attorney classifications from bargaining units represented by two other unions, the Mendocino County Management Employees Association (MCMEA) and Service Employees International Union (SEIU). Under the MCMEA and SEIU contracts, the attorneys would have gotten a 1% salary increase effective September 2006 if they had remained in those bargaining units. The County’s position was that the attorneys were…

State of California (Department of Personnel Administration) (2010) PERB Decision No. 2106-S (Issued on 4/30/10)Facts:The contract between the State of California (State) and the California Correctional Peace Officer Association (CCPOA) provided that dental and vision benefits would be provided to bargaining unit members through the CCPOA Benefit Trust Fund, an independent corporation established by CCPOA.  Through the CCPOA Benefit Trust Fund, an employee with two dependents would pay $41.80 per month for the dental benefit.In October 2007, CCPOA informed the State that non-members (ie fair share fee payers) would no longer be provided dental and vision benefits through the CCPOA…

City of San Jose v. Operating Engineers Local Union No. 3 (Case No. S162647)Oral argument was held in the San Jose case on May 5, 2010.  The issue in this case is:  Does the Public Employment Relations Board have the exclusive initial jurisdiction to determine whether certain "essential" public employees covered by Meyers-Milias-Brown Act (Gov. Code, sections 3500 3511) have the right to strike, or does that jurisdiction rest with the superior court? Practically, the dispute is over whether employers must initially go to PERB when seeking injunctive relief against an essential employee strike or whether the employer can go directly…

AFSCME, Local 3299 (2010) PERB Decision No. 2105-H (Issued on 4/21/10)Facts:This case involved an unfair practice charge filed by the University of California (UC) against AFSCME. During bargaining, AFSCME began leafleting in front of several medical centers at various UC campuses. The expired contract between UC and AFSCME required the union to abide by specific access guidelines promulgated at each campus. Those guidelines set forth exactly where AFSCME could engage in leafleting and where it couldn’t (for example, because of patient access issues). During the leafleting at issue, it appears undisputed that AFSCME violated the access guidelines by leafleting in prohibited areas. …

AB 1744 (Portantino)—the “Public Employees' Bill of Rights Act”—recently passed the Assembly Committee on Public Employees, Retirement and Social Security and is now headed to Appropriations. AB 1744 is a “gut and amend” that started out as a bill on enforcing monetary judgments. As currently written, the bill sets forth a “Bill of Rights” that applies only to state civil service employees. Most of the bill just reaffirms existing law. However, there is one significant change. Currently, the statute of limitations for taking disciplinary action against a state employee is 3 years from the date of the misconduct. (Gov. Code…