PERB Advisory Committee to Meet on November 29

The Labor & Employment Law Section of the Sacramento County Bar Association recently sponsored a luncheon featuring PERB Chair Anita Martinez, PERB Member Eugene Huguenin, and PERB General Counsel Suzanne Murphy.  Among the interesting
information presented:

  1. PERB is strongly considering adopting emergency regulations to implement MMBA factfinding per AB 646;
  2. PERB is also considering adopting regulations (through non-emergency procedures) to implement other recently enacted changes to its statutes, including AB 501 which brings certain JPAs under PERB’s authority;
  3. As a prelude to potential rulemaking, there will be a PERB Advisory Committee meeting Tuesday, November 29 at 10:00 am at the PERB Headquarters in Sacramento;
  4. Among the topics on which PERB is seeking suggestions/ideas: changes to its existing regulations; its “new approach” in IR cases, i.e. getting the parties together for settlement talks before papers are filed; designating only some Board decisions as precedential.

Comments:

  1. Unfortunately, I will be unable to attend the advisory committee meeting as I will be at the CalPERLA conference in Monterey (along with over a 1,000 other management-side practitioners.).  Hopefully some management folks will be able to make it to the advisory committee meeting to provide input on the ideas being floated by PERB.
  2. AB 646:  I’m glad PERB is considering emergency regulations.  That will (potentially) avoid some of the initial confusion caused by how the new law is drafted.  Presumably, PERB will adopt emergency regulations modeled after EERA’s factfinding provisions.  That certainly would make the most sense to me.
  3. Precedential Decisions:  PERB is apparently considering designating only some of its Board decisions a precedent.  Hallelujah!  I’ve been pushing for this for years.  Right now, a simple decision by the Board to dismiss a case because of a settlement by the parties is issued as “binding precedent.”  I would challenge anyone to demonstrate how such a decision could ever have any value as a precedent as the underlying facts, etc. are never set forth in the decision.  There are also dozens of dismissals involving DFR charges ever year that have little value as precedential guidance.  So hats off to PERB for raising this topic.
  4. Many thanks to Erich Shiners, my colleague in Sacramento, for reporting back what happened at the bar association meeting as I could not be there in person.
This entry was posted in PERB News. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.